Allahabad High Court Orders ₹25 Lakh Compensation For 2 Sisters Illegally Confined By Father After Conversion To Islam

The Allahabad High Court last week ordered the father of two adult sisters and the Uttar Pradesh Government to jointly pay ₹25 lakh compensation after holding that the women were illegally confined at their parental home following their decision to convert from Hinduism to Islam.A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain passed the order while allowing a habeas corpus petition concerning Diya Bhatia @ Zoya Diya Bhatia (20) and Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia (35). The order was passed after two women told the Court that they had voluntarily embraced Islam, Anshu in 2020 and Diya in 2021, out of their own faith, conscience, mental peace and spiritual solace. They categorically denied that their decisions were the result of force, fraud, coercion, undue influence, inducement, or allurement.They alleged that their father subsequently confined them in the parental home against their wishes because of their decision to change their faith. After interacting with both women, the Court recorded that their responses were "spontaneous, coherent and unequivocal" and that nothing emerged to indicate that either of them was acting under coercion, fear, inducement or undue influence. The Court held that both women, being majors, had full legal capacity to make decisions concerning their lives. It observed thus: "Once an individual attains majority, the Constitution recognises her autonomy to take decisions relating to faith, belief, residence, association and every other facet of personal liberty, subject only to restrictions sanctioned by law".Referring to Article 25 of the Constitution of India, the Court observed that the expression 'freedom of conscience' necessarily encompasses the right of a competent adult to adopt, renounce or change her faith in accordance with her own free will, belief and conviction.The Court said such a choice is an essential facet of individual autonomy, dignity and personal liberty, protected under Articles 21 and 25. Neither the State nor the family can ordinarily dictate or interfere with such an intensely personal decision except within constitutionally permissible restrictions and the authority of law, it said.The State, on the other hand, opposed the habeas corpus petition as it referred to an FIR lodged by the father of the women alleging forcible and deceitful conversion from Hinduism to Islam. The FIR was initially registered under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. During investigation, Sections 61(2), 111(3), 111(4) and 152 of the BNS, along with Sections 3/5(1) and 5(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, were added. The State argued that the alleged conversion formed part of a larger organised conspiracy having ramifications for the “sovereignty, integrity and unity of the nation”, and that releasing the women could prejudice the ongoing investigation. The High Court, however, found that the question of whether the conversion complied with the 2021 Act could not justify their continued confinement. The Court observed that the legality of the conversion and the legality of their detention constitute two distinct and independent issues. It further remarked thus: "Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the alleged conversion has not been effected strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act of 2021, such an assumption, by itself, would not authorise the continued confinement of two adult women by their father against their wishes". The Court said the legality of the conversion could be examined by the competent forum, while the legality of their detention fell within its jurisdiction in the habeas corpus proceedings. The Court was also not impressed with the State's submission that the alleged conversion threatened the sovereignty, integrity or security of the country. It noted that, apart from broad assertions based on the FIR and the pending investigation, no material had been placed before it to demonstrate that the women's voluntary exercise of religious choice, by itself, constituted such a threat. "Mere apprehensions, however serious they may appear, cannot substitute legally admissible material while adjudicating upon the fundamental rights of citizens".However, the Court clarified that the investigation into the FIR would proceed strictly in accordance with law and remain uninfluenced by its observations in the present proceedings. The High Court specifically found that the women had been unwillingly confined in their parental home and prevented from exercising their independent choice because they had embraced a different faith. Justice Jain observed that upon attaining majority, parental authority has to yield to constitutional liberty and individual autonomy."Any restraint upon the movement or liberty of such person, except lawful authority, would constitute illegal confinement and amount to a direct infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution," the Court...

Allahabad High Court Orders ₹25 Lakh Compensation For 2 Sisters Illegally Confined By Father After Conversion To Islam

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Allahabad High Court Orders ₹25 Lakh Compensation For 2 Sisters Illegally Confined By Father After Conversion To Islam

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers