The Allahabad High Court has ordered the immediate restoration of liberty to two adult women who had approached the Court through a habeas corpus petition alleging that they were unlawfully confined by their father after voluntarily embracing Islam.

In a significant judgment in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1079 of 2026, Justice Sandeep Jain held that the detention of Diya Bhatia @ Zoya Diya Bhatia and Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia was wholly illegal and without authority of law.

The Court not only permitted the women to live at any place and with any person of their choice but also held the father and the State of Uttar Pradesh jointly and severally liable for the violation of their fundamental rights and directed payment of ₹25 lakh compensation, to be equally divided between the two women.

The judgment was delivered on August 6, 2026.

“The Court has also directed the State authorities and the police to ensure strict compliance with the judgment. The Court has further directed the respondents to return the enumerated belongings and original documents to the two women within the stipulated period. The judgment, being reportable, reflects the timely and effective intervention of the constitutional court in the prevailing circumstances. One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is that it fixes personal accountability upon the offending officials and provides for recovery of the compensation amount, thereby ensuring that the constitutional violation does not remain without consequences.” Advocate for Petitioners, Shree Kaif Hasan Said on the Judgement while talking to FoEJ Media

Petition alleged restrictions began after women decided to embrace Islam

The case originated from a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. According to the petition, the two women had initially been practising Hinduism but later decided, of their own will, to accept and practise Islam. The petition stated that the women travelled to Kolkata for that purpose and prepared an affidavit expressing their inclination towards practising Islam before a Judicial Magistrate First Class.

According to the petition, a Muslim marriage organisation subsequently certified that, after completing the required formalities, the women had embraced Islam and adopted the names Amina Anshu Bhatia and Zoya Diya Bhatia.

Petition alleged women were traced in Kolkata and brought to Agra

The petition further alleged that after accepting Islam, the two women were traced by the Uttar Pradesh Police in Kolkata and were brought to Agra along with 10 other persons in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 228 of 2025, registered at Sadar Bazar Police Station, Agra, in relation to allegations of forcible conversion and other offences.

The petition alleged that the women remained in police custody for approximately one month because police officials wanted them to make statements against persons accused in the case. It further alleged that police officials forcibly obtained a statement from Anshu Bhatia, also known as Amina Bhatia, under pressure and coercion.

These were allegations made in the petition; the State disputed the petitioners’ account and defended the investigation.

Petition claimed women later gave voluntary statements before Magistrate

An important part of the petition concerned the statements allegedly recorded before a Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petition claimed that before the Magistrate, the women did not give statements against all the accused as allegedly sought by police.

Instead, according to the petition, they stated that they had voluntarily accepted Islam, had left their parental home of their own free will and had not been compelled or induced to embrace Islam. The High Court later independently interacted with both women and recorded their statements in the judgment.

Petition alleged continued confinement at parental home

The petition further alleged that even after the statements were recorded, the two women were kept at their parental home and were not permitted to leave the house or freely communicate with others. It was also alleged that they were prevented from practising Islam and were being forced to participate in pooja and hawan.

The petition claimed that restrictions had originally been imposed by the family after the women’s inclination towards Islam became known, following which the women allegedly left the parental home on March 24, 2025, travelled to Kolkata and formally accepted Islam.

Petition alleged pressure to return to Hinduism

The petition further alleged that the women were subjected to continuing pressure by family members and certain officials to abandon Islam and return to Hinduism under the guise of “counselling” and “Ghar Wapsi.” It also alleged that on one occasion, when the women attempted to leave their residence to seek legal assistance, their father prevented them from leaving and allegedly physically assaulted and restrained them.

The petition claimed that they were under continuous surveillance, could leave the house only under family supervision and were effectively deprived of their liberty. The petitioners therefore contended that the women were unable to approach the High Court personally because of the alleged restrictions on their movement and communication.

Habeas corpus petition sought immediate restoration of liberty

The petition sought a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce both women before the High Court and restore their liberty. It also sought any other appropriate relief and costs of the proceedings.

Advocate Kaif Hasan appearing for the petitioners. The final judgment records Mr. Ali Bin Saif, Mr. Kaif Hasan assisted by Mr. Mohd. Abubakar, Mohd. Areeb Masood, Mr. Faraz Khan and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Yadav, as appearing for the petitioners. The State was represented by Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, assisted by AGA Pankaj Saxena.

State opposed petition, alleged forcible and deceitful conversion

The State strongly contested the petition.

According to the State’s submissions recorded in the judgment, the women’s father had lodged Case Crime No. 228 of 2025 at Sadar Bazar Police Station, Agra, alleging that the women had been subjected to forcible and deceitful conversion from Hinduism to Islam.

The State submitted that the FIR was initially registered under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. According to the State, further investigation led to the addition of Sections 61(2), 111(3), 111(4) and 152 BNS, along with Sections 3/5(1) and 5(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The State argued that the subsequent addition of these provisions demonstrated that the allegation of voluntary conversion could not simply be accepted without examining the investigative material.

State alleged larger organised conspiracy

The State’s case went beyond the individual dispute.

It argued that the alleged conversion formed part of a larger organised conspiracy having ramifications for the sovereignty, integrity and unity of India. The State claimed that the investigation had uncovered material indicating the involvement of organised persons and alleged external or foreign influences.

It further argued that allowing the women to leave the custody of their father at that stage could prejudice the criminal investigation, influence witnesses and frustrate the criminal proceedings. The State also submitted that Articles 21 and 25 were subject to reasonable constitutional and statutory limitations and that the alleged exercise of religious freedom could be regulated where public order, social harmony or national interest were implicated.

Petitioners said conversion and detention were separate questions

The petitioners countered that the habeas corpus proceedings were concerned with a much narrower question: whether two major women were being unlawfully deprived of their liberty. They argued that neither the criminal investigation nor the ultimate legality of the alleged conversion was required to be adjudicated in the habeas corpus proceedings.

The petitioners maintained that both women were adults capable of deciding their religion, residence and associations. They relied upon Articles 21 and 25, arguing that freedom of conscience and personal liberty encompass an adult’s right to make decisions concerning faith and residence.

They also relied upon Supreme Court precedents including Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. and Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P., arguing that constitutional courts are required to protect the decisional autonomy of adults.

High Court first examined scope of habeas corpus

The Court began its legal analysis by examining the nature of a writ of habeas corpus. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Home Secretary (Prison) v. H. Nilofer Nisha, the Court reiterated that habeas corpus is available to secure an individual’s liberty against unlawful detention, including private detention.

The Court noted that the essential question is whether the detention is supported by lawful authority.It also considered precedents dealing with adult daughters allegedly being confined by parents.

Court relies on principle that adults are entitled to make their own choices

The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas, which recognises the legal significance of attaining majority and an adult’s right to make independent choices.

The Court also referred to decisions concerning decisional autonomy, including Rajamohan MS v. State of Kerala, Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., and other constitutional-autonomy jurisprudence. The underlying principle was that parental authority may include advice, counselling and guidance but does not confer a general legal power to confine a major daughter against her wishes.

High Court personally interacted with both women

The turning point in the case came when the High Court independently interacted with both women.

The judgment records that Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia, aged about 35 years, was highly educated, holding an M.Sc., M.Phil. in Zoology and B.Ed., and had also worked as a lecturer.

She told the Court that she had voluntarily embraced Islam in 2020 for mental peace, spiritual fulfilment and inner solace. She denied that her decision had resulted from inducement, coercion, undue influence or any extraneous consideration.

The Court also interacted with Diya Bhatia, who was stated to be approximately 20 years old and educated up to the Intermediate level. She told the Court that she had voluntarily embraced Islam in 2021 because of her personal faith, conscience, mental peace and spiritual solace. She too denied force, fraud, coercion, undue influence or allurement.

Court finds statements “spontaneous, coherent and unequivocal”

After interacting with both women, the Court made a crucial factual finding.

It stated that their responses were spontaneous, coherent and unequivocal and that nothing emerged during the interaction indicating that either woman was acting under coercion, fear, inducement or undue influence. The Court found that both consistently asserted that they had voluntarily embraced Islam as a matter of personal faith and conscience.

Religious choice protected under Articles 21 and 25

The High Court then addressed the constitutional question. It held that once an individual attains majority, the Constitution recognises her autonomy to make decisions concerning faith, belief, residence, association and other facets of personal liberty. The Court interpreted the expression “freedom of conscience” under Article 25 as encompassing the right of a competent adult to adopt, renounce or change faith according to her own free will, belief and conviction.

According to the Court, such religious choice is protected not only by Article 25 but also by Article 21, as an aspect of individual autonomy, dignity and personal liberty.

Court draws crucial distinction: legality of conversion versus legality of detention

The judgment’s most important legal distinction is that the legality of the alleged conversion and the legality of the alleged detention are two separate questions. The Court acknowledged that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 provides a statutory framework governing religious conversions.

However, the Court noted that the validity of the alleged conversion was not the subject matter of the habeas corpus proceedings. Any alleged non-compliance with the Act could therefore be examined by the competent authority or court in appropriate proceedings.

But even if the conversion had not strictly complied with the statutory procedure, the Court held that such a circumstance could not by itself authorise the continued confinement of two adult women by their father against their wishes.

Court rejects State’s national-security contention

The Court was also not persuaded by the State’s contention that the alleged conversion formed part of a larger conspiracy threatening national sovereignty, integrity or security.

The Court observed that, apart from broad assertions based on the FIR and the pending investigation, no material had been placed before it demonstrating that the women’s voluntary exercise of religious choice, by itself, constituted a threat to the sovereignty, integrity or security of India.

The Court held that mere apprehensions, however serious, cannot substitute legally admissible material while adjudicating fundamental rights. It further held that an inference of an unlawful agenda could not legitimately be drawn merely from conjectures, surmises or allegations that remained to be tested before the competent criminal court.

Criminal investigation allowed to continue

The High Court did not terminate or otherwise decide the criminal investigation. It expressly directed that the investigation arising from Case Crime No. 228 of 2025 should continue in accordance with law and remain uninfluenced by the observations made in the habeas corpus proceedings. However, the Court held that the mere pendency of a criminal investigation could not itself provide lawful justification for curtailing the liberty of adult citizens, particularly when they were not subject to a judicial or other lawful detention order.

Court holds confinement by father illegal

After considering the material and its interaction with the women, the Court reached a categorical conclusion. It held that both women had been unwillingly confined in their parental home and prevented from exercising their independent choices because they had decided to embrace a different faith.

The Court held that such confinement could not receive the sanction of law. It therefore concluded that their detention by respondent No. 4, in collusion and connivance with the State, was wholly illegal and without legal sanction.

State held accountable for “constitutional indifference”

The Court’s criticism was not limited to the father. It held that the State, which bears the constitutional responsibility of protecting life and liberty, had failed to secure the women’s release from unlawful confinement. The Court observed that the State machinery had permitted the continuation of the detention under the ostensible cover of the criminal proceedings.

According to the judgment, this amounted to executive inaction and constitutional indifference and rendered the State equally accountable in public law for the violation of the women’s fundamental rights.

₹25 lakh compensation for violation of fundamental rights

The Court then considered whether the women were entitled to monetary compensation. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s landmark judgments in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the High Court reiterated that constitutional courts can award compensation under their public-law jurisdiction where fundamental rights are flagrantly violated.

The Court emphasised that such compensation is a constitutional remedy distinct from ordinary private-law damages. It held that the present case warranted exemplary constitutional compensation because of the prolonged deprivation of liberty, emotional and psychological suffering and failure of the State machinery to protect the women’s rights.

Court: Parents have no licence to incarcerate adult children over faith

In one of the strongest observations of the judgment, the Court stated that the Constitution does not give parents a licence to incarcerate their major children merely because they disagree with their faith, beliefs or personal choices.

The Court held that constitutional rights cannot be eclipsed by parental authority, social morality or majoritarian sentiment. It reiterated that the liberty of an adult individual is inviolable and that attempts to suppress such liberty through force or coercion invite constitutional scrutiny and appropriate public-law consequences.

₹25 lakh to be paid by father and State jointly

The Court directed the father and the State of Uttar Pradesh to jointly and severally pay ₹25 lakh to the two women. The compensation is to be equally divided between them and paid within eight weeks from the date of judgment.

The Court also permitted the State Government, after satisfying the award, to recover 50% from the father and the remaining 50% from any delinquent public servant whose acts or omissions contributed to the unconstitutional deprivation of liberty, subject to due process and an opportunity of hearing.

Father restrained from interfering with women’s lives

The Court further directed that the father shall not directly or indirectly interfere with either woman’s:

• personal liberty;
• movement;
• residence;
• profession; or
• religious choices.

The State authorities, particularly respondent Nos. 2 and 3, were directed to ensure that no interference was caused in the peaceful life and liberty of the women and, if required, to provide adequate protection in accordance with law.

Passports, educational and bank documents ordered to be returned

The Court also issued a specific direction concerning the women’s personal documents.

The father has been directed to hand over within seven days:

• passports;
• educational certificates;
• identity documents;
• bank passbooks;
• cheque books;
• conversion-related documents; and
• all other original documents and personal belongings.

The Court directed the concerned State authorities to ensure compliance if any difficulty arose.

Court leaves conversion case and criminal proceedings open

Importantly, the judgment does not amount to a final judicial declaration that the alleged conversion was legally valid under the Uttar Pradesh conversion law.

The High Court expressly clarified that its observations were confined to the issue of illegal detention. The Court did not decide the merits of Case Crime No. 228 of 2025, nor did it finally determine the legality or validity of the alleged religious conversion.

Those questions remain open for determination by the competent court or authority in accordance with law.

A habeas corpus case that became a ruling on constitutional autonomy

The judgment ultimately places individual autonomy at the centre of the dispute.

What began as a habeas corpus petition alleging confinement after a change of faith resulted in a broader reaffirmation that an adult citizen has constitutional autonomy over intensely personal matters, including faith, residence and association.

The Court’s reasoning makes a clear distinction between investigating whether a conversion was lawful and permitting private parties to deprive an adult of liberty.

While the criminal investigation and conversion-related questions remain open, the High Court has unequivocally held that an adult’s personal liberty cannot be curtailed merely because her family disagrees with her religious or personal choices.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with the women declared free to live where and with whom they choose, the father restrained from interfering with their lives, the State directed to protect their liberty, and ₹25 lakh constitutional compensation imposed jointly and severally upon the father and the State of Uttar Pradesh.