MP High Court Upholds 20-Year-Old's Right to Pursue Jain Diksha, Directs Police Protection Against Family Interference
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore held that a 20-year-old woman's decision to renounce the world and live as a Jain Sadhvi cannot be obstructed even by her parents, and directed local police to act promptly if any coercive steps are taken against her.
A 20-year-old woman, Tanisha, approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore seeking police protection and a direction that no person — including her own parents — be allowed to interfere with her decision to follow Shwetambar Jain Dharma and take Diksha, the formal religious initiation that would see her renounce the world and live as a Jain Sadhvi. Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, sitting singly, disposed of the writ petition on 7 September 2026 after hearing it on admission, directing Tanisha to file an application before the concerned Superintendent of Police or the Station House Officer, who would then be obliged to act in line with the Supreme Court's binding directions in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India.
The Dispute Before the Court
Tanisha's petition set out that she had chosen to practice Shwetambar Jain Dharma and had decided to pursue Diksha. Her parents and near relatives, she alleged, were harassing her and opposing this religious choice. She apprehended that her family members would attempt to restrict her movement and liberty, and feared that, given her parents' influence in the local community, she would not be permitted to take Diksha or live peacefully as a Jain Sadhvi.
Before filing the writ petition, Tanisha had submitted a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Indore, seeking protection. That representation was pending. She then moved the High Court seeking an array of reliefs: immediate police protection to ensure her safety and freedom of movement; a direction that no parent, guardian, relative, or other person interfere with her religious practice or her decision to pursue Diksha; a direction that no coercive action, false complaints, or surveillance be permitted against her or religious persons associated with the Diksha process; and a declaration that, as a major, she is entitled to exercise her fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21, 25, and 26 without hindrance.
The Legal Question: Can Family Preference Override an Adult's Religious Choice?
The court framed the matter straightforwardly. Tanisha was 20 years old and a citizen of India. As an adult — a person aged more than 18 years — she is, in law, entitled to follow or practise religion in her own way and to live her life as per her own will. The court acknowledged the emotional reality on the other side: the parents and near relatives, out of obvious attachment to their daughter, were trying to prevent her from taking Diksha. The court recorded that it had “equal sympathy towards the present petitioner as well as towards the parents.”
That sympathy, however, could not alter the legal position. The court held that any obstruction caused to a major person in the exercise of her legal rights “cannot be permitted in eye of law.” The parents' resistance, however understandable on an emotional level, does not have legal sanction when directed against the free choice of an adult.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Bhatt anchored his reasoning in two Supreme Court precedents. The first was Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522, where the Apex Court held that major persons aged more than 18 years are free to make their own decisions and that courts are required to protect the interests of such persons. The second was Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192, which similarly reinforced the duty of authorities to take action in accordance with those principles when an adult's choices are being thwarted by others.
The court's application of these precedents was deliberate. Both decisions arose in the context of adults facing family opposition to personal choices, and the court treated their ratio as squarely applicable here: once a person crosses the threshold of majority, neither family sentiment nor social pressure can legally override her individual decisions about how to live and what faith to follow.
The court did not issue a blanket standing direction of the kind Tanisha had sought in her petition — it did not, for instance, prohibit all relatives from having any contact or direct police to provide round-the-clock protection immediately. Instead, it fashioned a more calibrated direction, requiring Tanisha to approach the police with a specific application and placing an obligation on the concerned SHO to act on that application in conformity with the two Supreme Court decisions.
Directions Issued
The court directed Tanisha to approach the Superintendent of Police or the concerned police station (Respondent No. 4 in the petition) by filing an application seeking assistance against any coercive method taken by any person against her, including her parents. Upon receipt of such an application, the concerned authority — specifically the SHO of the concerned police station — was directed to look into the matter and immediately take action in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court in Lata Singh and Shakti Vahini.
The structure of the direction is significant. By routing relief through an application to the police rather than granting an in-rem court order, the court ensured that any police action would be triggered by a concrete, documented complaint, while the SHO was left without discretion to ignore or delay the matter — the obligation to act promptly was expressly tied to the Supreme Court's directions in those two cases.
Outcome
Writ Petition No. 48919 of 2025 was disposed of on 7 September 2026 with the directions noted above. No costs were awarded. The petition was heard and decided at the admission stage itself.