Allahabad HC orders Rs 25 lakh compensation to 2 sisters 'illegally confined' by family after conversion to Islam
The court held that both women, being majors, had full legal capacity to make decisions concerning their lives.
Total Views |
In an unusual judgement, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday, August 11, ordered the father of two adult women and the Uttar Pradesh government to jointly pay Rs 25 lakh compensation after holding that the sisters were illegally confined at their parental home following their decision to convert to Islam. 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 the two women told the high 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.
_202608111651318393_H@@IGHT_400_W@@IDTH_700.jpg "Allahabad HC")
The court held that both women, being majors, had full legal capacity to make decisions concerning their lives. The court thus observed, "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".
The state government had 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, other sections of 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 government 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 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.
"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 accordingly held that the detention was wholly illegal and without any sanction of law and that the court had the duty to restore their liberty.
In its 22-page order dated August 6, the court also found fault with the State machinery for failing to protect their liberty. The court remarked that the state government, instead of securing their release, had permitted the illegal detention to continue under the cover of criminal proceedings and had, through its acts of omission and commission, "lent tacit support to the continued deprivation of the fundamental rights" of the women.
Finding an "exceptionally grave and egregious violation of constitutional rights", the court held the case warranted exemplary constitutional compensation. The court said both the women were free to reside at any place and with any person of their own choice, without interference from their father, the State or any other person. The father and the State of Uttar Pradesh were held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs 25 lakh compensation, to be equally divided between them, within eight weeks.
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. The court thus observed, "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".
The court said such a choice is an essential facet of individual autonomy, dignity and personal liberty, protected under Articles 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and 25 (freedom of religion). 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, the court added.
The state government had 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, other sections of 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 government 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 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 accordingly held that the detention was wholly illegal and without any sanction of law and that the court had the duty to restore their liberty.
In its 22-page order dated August 6, the court also found fault with the State machinery for failing to protect their liberty. The court remarked that the state government, instead of securing their release, had permitted the illegal detention to continue under the cover of criminal proceedings and had, through its acts of omission and commission, "lent tacit support to the continued deprivation of the fundamental rights" of the women.
Finding an "exceptionally grave and egregious violation of constitutional rights", the court held the case warranted exemplary constitutional compensation. The court said both the women were free to reside at any place and with any person of their own choice, without interference from their father, the State or any other person. The father and the State of Uttar Pradesh were held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs 25 lakh compensation, to be equally divided between them, within eight weeks.