'Constitutional Rights Cannot Be Eclipsed By Parental Authority': Allahabad High Court Slaps ₹25 Lakh Compensation On Father And State For Unlawful Confinement Of Adult Women Over Voluntary Religious Conversion

"Constitutional rights cannot be eclipsed by parental authority, social morality or majoritarian sentiment. The liberty of an adult individual is inviolable, and any attempt to suppress that liberty by force or coercion invites the constitutional scrutiny of this Court and attracts appropriate public law consequences, including the award of monetary compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, declared that two adult women, who voluntarily converted to Islam, must be set free from their unlawful confinement by their father, holding both the father and the State of Uttar Pradesh jointly and severally liable to pay ₹25 lakh as compensation for the egregious violation of their fundamental rights.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain emphasized that parental authority cannot override the constitutional liberty and individual autonomy of major individuals to choose their faith and residence.

The case arose from a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed on behalf of Ms. Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia, aged 35, and Ms. Diya Bhatia @ Zoya Diya Bhatia, aged 20, who alleged illegal confinement by their father, respondent No.4, Anil Kumar Bhatia. Their father had lodged an FIR (Case Crime No. 228 of 2025) at Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra, alleging forcible and deceitful conversion from Hinduism to Islam, with charges eventually including sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The primary legal question before the Court was whether the corpus, being major women, were unlawfully deprived of their personal liberty and detained against their will. The court was also called upon to determine if compensation was warranted for the alleged infringement of their fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.

Scope of Habeas Corpus and Individual Autonomy

The Allahabad High Court interacted independently with both women, who unequivocally stated their voluntary conversion to Islam in 2020 and 2021, respectively, for spiritual peace, without any coercion or inducement. They asserted that they were forcibly confined by their father due to their decision to change faith and were deprived of their liberty and personal belongings, including passports and educational certificates.

Confinement by Father Unlawful

The Court, after hearing the corpus, noted that both are major women possessing full legal capacity to make decisions concerning their lives. It underscored that the Constitution recognizes an individual's autonomy regarding faith, belief, residence, and association, subject only to lawful restrictions. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience, encompassing the right to adopt, renounce, or change faith, which is an essential facet of individual autonomy, dignity, and personal liberty, also protected under Article 21.

Distinction Between Conversion Legality and Detention Legality

The Court clarified that while the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, sets out a framework for conversions, the legality or validity of the alleged conversion was not the subject of adjudication in the habeas corpus proceedings. Even if the conversion procedure was not strictly followed, it would not justify the continued confinement of adult women by their father against their wishes. The Court stressed that the legality of conversion and the legality of detention are distinct issues.

State's "Larger Conspiracy" Argument Rejected

The State, through the Additional Advocate General, vehemently opposed the petition, arguing that the conversion was part of a "larger and organised conspiracy" affecting national sovereignty and integrity. It contended that allowing the corpus to leave their father's custody could prejudice the ongoing criminal investigation. However, the High Court was not persuaded, observing that:

No Material to Support National Security Threat

"Except for a broad assertion founded upon the allegations contained in the First Information Report and the pendency of investigation, no material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the voluntary exercise of religious choice by the corpus, by itself, constitutes a threat to the sovereignty, integrity or security of the country."

The Court found nothing to indicate the women acted with oblique motives or as instruments of an unlawful agenda. It noted that such inferences could not be drawn from conjectures or unproven allegations.

Pendency of Investigation No Ground for Detention

The Court held that the mere pendency of a criminal investigation cannot justify curtailing the liberty of adult citizens, especially when they are not subject to any lawful detention order. It reiterated that being major women, the corpus possess an inviolable constitutional right to determine their own lives, including their faith, residence, and association, as integral to Articles 21 and 25.

Parental Authority Yields to Constitutional Liberty

Referring to precedents like Sonni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas and Rajamohan MS v. State of Kerala, the Court firmly held that parental authority yields to constitutional liberty upon an individual attaining majority. Any restraint on an adult's liberty, without lawful authority, constitutes illegal confinement and a direct infringement of fundamental rights. The Court cited Joju George and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, which emphasized that individual autonomy over one's body, including the freedom to believe or not to believe, is fundamental.

"The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty cannot be permitted to yield to familial disapproval, social orthodoxy or executive apathy."

Compensation for Unlawful Detention

The Court found the confinement by the father, in collusion and connivance with the State, to be wholly illegal and without legal sanction. It held that such conduct constituted a "flagrant affront to the Rule of Law and a gross, deliberate and continuing infringement" of Articles 21 and 25, inflicting profound mental anguish and an irreparable assault on their dignity and autonomy.

State Equally Accountable

Critically, the Court held the State equally accountable for its "executive inaction and constitutional indifference," which permitted the continuation of the illegal detention despite its obligation as the "sentinel and protector of the life and liberty of every citizen." Citing Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the Court affirmed its power to award monetary compensation for fundamental rights violations as a public law remedy, aimed at upholding constitutional guarantees and ensuring accountability.

Exemplary Constitutional Compensation Awarded

Given the exceptional gravity and prolonged nature of the violation (since 2021) and the State's failure to protect fundamental rights, the Court deemed it a fit case for exemplary constitutional compensation. It clarified that observations regarding detention do not impact the criminal proceedings or the legality of conversion, which remain for competent forums to decide.

The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition, declaring the two women free to reside where and with whom they choose. It held the father and the State jointly and severally liable to pay ₹25 lakh compensation, to be equally divided between the two women, within eight weeks. The Court also directed the father to return all personal documents within seven days and mandated State authorities to ensure their protection and non-interference in their lives.

Date of Decision: August 6, 2026