Allahabad HC Convenes Special Saturday Session, Citing 'Urgency' in Case of Missing Inter-Faith Couple

PRAYAGRAJ – In an exceptional move underscoring the gravity of a potential threat to personal liberty, the Allahabad High Court has directed a special Saturday sitting to hear a habeas corpus petition concerning an inter-faith couple who vanished from the court's vicinity following a hearing. A Division Bench, comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant, has ordered Uttar Pradesh police authorities to produce the couple, Shane Alam and Rashmi, by noon on October 18, deeming the matter "very urgent."

The decision to convene on a non-working day signals the judiciary's profound concern over the couple's safety, particularly as they were purportedly under a High Court order for police protection. The case brings to the forefront the persistent challenges surrounding consensual inter-faith relationships, the efficacy of protective orders, and the court's role as the ultimate guarantor of fundamental rights.

"We are conscious that tomorrow is a non-working day," the Bench stated in its order. "However, respondents shall produce the corpus in this Court... and the office shall make necessary arrangements for the sitting of the Court." This directive elevates the situation from a standard missing persons' case to a critical test of the state's ability to protect individuals, even within the supposed sanctuary of the judicial complex.

Background of the Disappearance and Alleged Police Inaction

The urgent habeas corpus plea was filed by Tehseem, the brother of Shane Alam. It outlines a disturbing sequence of events following a court appearance on October 15, 2025. The couple, Shane Alam and his 20-year-old Hindu partner, Rashmi, were at the High Court for hearings related to multiple writ petitions. These petitions stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Rashmi's father, accusing Alam of abducting his daughter.

The plea asserts that the FIR, filed two months after Rashmi allegedly left home on July 30, 2025, is fabricated and lodged with mala fide intent. During the October 15 hearing, Rashmi's statement was recorded, in which she reportedly affirmed that she was with Alam of her own free will, thereby supporting his case against the abduction charges.

The situation allegedly took a menacing turn after the hearing concluded. According to the petition, Rashmi's father, accompanied by several other men, confronted the couple within the court campus. Fearing for their safety, the couple remained inside the premises for a considerable time, informing their counsel that men were positioned at all exit gates. At approximately 5 p.m., they reportedly left in an e-rickshaw, after which all contact was lost.

Crucially, the petition highlights that the court had previously, on September 3, 2025, granted the couple police protection. The plea contends that despite this order, local police not only failed to provide adequate security but also engaged in harassing Alam's family, detaining his brother and other relatives.

Following the disappearance, the couple's counsel made an immediate mention before the court that same evening. The Bench had instructed the Government Advocate to alert the police, with a specific direction that the couple "should not cross the border of the city." However, the habeas corpus petition alleges that no effective measures were taken by the police, and no new FIR regarding their disappearance was registered, compelling the family to seek the High Court's urgent intervention through the present writ.

Legal Implications: A Test for Habeas Corpus and State Accountability

The High Court's swift and decisive action to hold a special session is a powerful exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. The writ of habeas corpus, a cornerstone of individual liberty, is being deployed not just to question unlawful detention by the state, but to command the state to fulfill its positive obligation to protect life and liberty from threats by private actors, especially when a judicial protection order is in effect.

Legal experts note that the court's intervention underscores a critical principle: the state's responsibility does not end at issuing an order; it extends to its diligent and effective enforcement. The allegations of police inaction, if proven, represent a significant breakdown in the rule of law and could lead to strictures against the concerned officials. The court will likely examine the adequacy of the protection provided and scrutinize the police response in the immediate aftermath of the couple being reported missing from its own premises.

---

In Separate Ruling, Court Cites POCSO to Deny Minor Mother's Release

While the court addresses the urgent matter of the missing couple, another Bench of the Allahabad High Court recently delivered a significant judgment highlighting the tension between a minor's autonomy and the stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

In a habeas corpus plea filed on behalf of a 17-year-old girl who is also the mother of a two-month-old infant, a Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar declined to release her from a government shelter home into the custody of her mother-in-law. The court ruled that she must remain in the children's home until she attains the age of majority on October 5, 2026.

The court's primary reasoning was that permitting the minor to cohabit with her adult husband, Mukesh, would expose him to criminal liability under the POCSO Act. "Permitting a minor to cohabit with an adult would make the husband liable for offences punishable under the POCSO Act as well," the Bench observed, emphasizing that under current law, consent of a minor is immaterial for sexual acts.

The case presented a complex human dilemma. The minor, referred to as 'A', had married Mukesh on July 3, 2025, and given birth to their son just eleven days later. Her father lodged an FIR for kidnapping, leading to Mukesh's arrest and 'A' being placed in a shelter home by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) after she refused to return to her parents, citing a "peril to her life."

The petitioner's counsel cited the 2011 Supreme Court ruling in K.P. Thimmappa Gowda v. State of Karnataka to argue the girl's consent legitimized the relationship. However, the High Court distinguished this precedent, noting that the law has undergone a "sea change." The age of consent, which was 16 years at the time of the Thimmappa Gowda decision, was raised to 18 in 2013. The court pointed out that under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which was in force when the marriage occurred, any sexual act with a person under 18, with or without consent, is punishable as rape.

Acknowledging the "human angle," particularly the needs of a minor mother and her infant, the court issued a series of directives to ensure their welfare. It ordered that the In-charge of the children's home must ensure conditions conducive to their health, arranging for a doctor and a paediatrician to be available. Furthermore, the court directed the District Judge, Kanpur Dehat, to appoint a senior female judicial officer to visit the mother and child twice a month to monitor the implementation of the court's order. While denying the mother-in-law's request to bring food, the court permitted regular visitation rights to provide emotional support, underscoring a compassionate, albeit legally constrained, approach.