Allahabad HC Frees Adult Man Who Embraced Islam and Married Against Father's Wishes, Invokes Articles 21 and 25

Justice Sandeep Jain held that an adult's choice of faith and life partner cannot be overridden by family disapproval, setting Ayush Malik at liberty after interacting with him in court.

The Allahabad High Court, in a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Ayush Malik, a 31-year-old man who converted from Hinduism to Islam and married Chandni Qureshi against his father's wishes, set the corpus at liberty on 16 September 2026. Justice Sandeep Jain, sitting singly at Court No. 73, found no lawful justification for any continuing restraint on Ayush Malik's personal liberty after interacting with him directly in court. The bench held that an adult's constitutionally protected choices regarding faith and a life partner cannot be displaced merely because those choices are unacceptable to family members. The order disposed of Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1307 of 2026.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petition was filed by Ayush Malik and Sultan, a friend of the corpus. According to counsel for the petitioners — Deepak Singh, Mohammad Khalid, and Umar Khalid — Ayush Malik had voluntarily renounced Hinduism and embraced Islam without any coercion, undue influence, or inducement. He subsequently solemnized marriage with Chandni Qureshi, a step his father, Devraj Singh Malik (respondent No. 4), strongly opposed.

Aggrieved, Devraj Singh Malik lodged an FIR on 6 June 2026, registered as Case Crime No. 241 of 2026, at Police Station Shamli, District Shamli. The FIR was filed under Sections 5(1) and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and under Sections 308(5), 351(3), 61(2), 338, 336(3), and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — not against the corpus, but against his wife Chandni Qureshi and her relatives. The petitioners alleged that, in collusion with Devraj Singh Malik, State authorities had facilitated the illegal detention of Ayush Malik and that he was being kept under house arrest from 4 June 2026 with the active assistance of the State machinery.

Sultan's role in the petition was as a friend through whom the corpus had sought assistance in securing his release from what was described as illegal custody.

Initial Directions and Production of the Corpus

On 9 September 2026, Justice Sandeep Jain took initial cognisance of the allegations. The bench observed that the allegations regarding the corpus's illegal detention and the alleged involvement of State functionaries in facilitating it were serious and warranted immediate consideration. Notice was issued to respondent No. 4, and steps to serve notice were to be taken within three days.

The State authorities and Devraj Singh Malik were directed to ensure the production of Ayush Malik before the court on 16 September 2026. The bench added that if the corpus was not produced on that date, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 — the State respondents — would be required to file personal affidavits disclosing the reasons for non-production and the steps taken to secure it. The matter was listed as fresh on 16 September 2026.

A vakalatnama filed by Sri Vibhu Rai on behalf of respondent No. 4 was taken on record at this stage.

What the Corpus and His Father Told the Court

Ayush Malik was produced before the court on 16 September 2026. He stated that after his conversion and marriage, he was subjected to threats and unlawful confinement and had been kept under house arrest from 4 June 2026. He told the court that he had been produced pursuant to its order and categorically asserted that he was not under any coercion, threat, undue influence, or pressure from any person. He reiterated that he had independently applied his mind and had voluntarily chosen to profess and practise Islam. He also stated his intention to solemnize marriage with Chandni Qureshi, describing the criminal proceedings against her and her relatives as a consequence of his choice.

The court also interacted with Devraj Singh Malik. He refuted his son's account and stated that Ayush Malik had been influenced or brainwashed and had not voluntarily embraced Islam. He expressed concern for his son's welfare and stated he did not approve of the conversion or the proposed marriage, considering such decisions not to be in his son's interest.

Ayush Malik categorically disputed his father's assertions before the court and maintained that his decisions had been taken voluntarily, independently, and after due deliberation.

The record further disclosed that Chandni Qureshi and her father, Islam Qureshi, who had been arrested in connection with the FIR, were subsequently enlarged on bail by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Shamli at Kairana, by order dated 24 July 2026. It also appeared from the material before the court that the corpus had been residing under police presence at his house before being produced pursuant to the court's directions.

The Court's Reasoning on Articles 21 and 25

Justice Sandeep Jain found it apparent from the interaction with the corpus that he had attained majority and was capable of taking decisions concerning his own life. His categorical statement — that he had voluntarily embraced Islam and that the decision was not induced by threat, coercion, undue influence, or pressure — was recorded. The bench found nothing on record to persuade it to disbelieve that statement.

The bench drew on Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to limitations contained therein. It held that a person who has attained majority is ordinarily entitled to determine his faith according to his own conscience. Such a choice, as an expression of individual autonomy and freedom of conscience, cannot be displaced merely because it is unacceptable to family members.

On the question of marriage, the bench held that the right to choose a life partner forms an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The mere fact that such a choice may be contrary to the wishes or expectations of the family cannot, by itself, furnish a legitimate basis for curtailing that choice.

Justice Sandeep Jain stated that the court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not required to substitute its own perception of what would be beneficial for the considered choice of an adult corpus. The concern expressed by the father was acknowledged as understandable in the context of the familial relationship. However, the bench held that such concern cannot override the constitutionally protected autonomy of an adult who is competent to take decisions concerning his faith, residence, and choice of life partner.

The bench also addressed the threshold for judicial interference with a freely expressed choice: “once an adult person has unequivocally expressed his free will and choice before the Court,” that choice is ordinarily to be respected unless its exercise is shown to be vitiated by circumstances recognised in law. No such circumstances were found on the record in this case.

Outcome

The court found no lawful justification for continuing any restraint upon the personal liberty of Ayush Malik. He was set at liberty to reside at such place as he may choose and with such person as he may, of his own free will, choose to reside with. He was also declared at liberty to profess and practise the religion of his choice and to take an appropriate decision regarding his matrimonial relationship in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of on 16 September 2026.