Allahabad High Court awards ₹25 lakh compensation to sisters illegally confined by father after conversion

The Allahabad High Court has held that parental authority cannot justify the detention of adult children, ordering the father of two sisters and the Uttar Pradesh government to jointly pay ₹25 lakh compensation for their illegal confinement. Justice Sandeep Jain allowed the habeas corpus petition, declaring Diya Bhatia alias Zoya Diya Bhatia (20) and Anshu Bhatia alias Amina Anshu Bhatia (35) at liberty to live wherever they choose.

Two Sisters, One Life-Altering Choice

The sisters told the court that they had voluntarily embraced Islam — Anshu in 2020 and Diya in 2021 — out of personal faith, conscience and spiritual conviction. They categorically denied that their decisions resulted from force, fraud, coercion, or undue influence , and asserted they were not motivated by any extraneous or pecuniary consideration.

Their father, however, opposed their conversion and allegedly confined them within the parental home against their expressed wishes. He lodged Case Crime No. 228 of 2025 at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Agra , initially under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 . Additional provisions — Sections 61(2), 111(3), 111(4) and 152 BNS , alongside Sections 3/5(1) and 5(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 — were later added during the investigation.

"Spontaneous, Coherent and Unequivocal"

After personally interacting with both sisters in court, Justice Jain recorded that their responses were "spontaneous, coherent and unequivocal," with nothing emerging to indicate that either was acting under coercion, fear, inducement or undue influence .

The court observed that upon attaining majority, the Constitution recognises an individual's autonomy to take decisions relating to faith, belief, residence and association. Article 25 's guarantee of " freedom of conscience " necessarily encompasses a competent adult's right to adopt, renounce or change faith in accordance with free will and conviction — a choice protected under both Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution.

The State's Conspiracy Narrative Rejected

The State opposed the petition, arguing that the conversions formed part of a larger organised conspiracy threatening national sovereignty, integrity and unity, and that releasing the sisters could prejudice the ongoing investigation.

The court was unpersuaded. "Mere apprehensions, however serious they may appear, cannot substitute legally admissible material while adjudicating upon the fundamental rights of citizens," it held.

Nor did the court accept that alleged procedural non-compliance with the 2021 Act could justify continued confinement. "The legality of the conversion and the legality of their detention constitute two distinct and independent issues," the judgment states, adding that even assuming the conversion was irregular, it "would not authorise the continued confinement of two adult women by their father against their wishes."

Parental Authority Yields to Constitutional Liberty

Drawing on precedents including Sonni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas , Rajamohan MS v. State of Kerala , Home Secretary (Prison) v. H. Nilofer Nisha and Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar , the court reaffirmed that parental authority must yield to constitutional liberty once a person attains majority and that courts are duty-bound to award constitutional compensation for flagrant violations of fundamental rights .

"The Constitution does not confer upon parents a licence to incarcerate their major children merely because they disapprove of their faith, beliefs or personal choices," the court observed. "Constitutional rights cannot be eclipsed by parental authority , social morality or majoritarian sentiment."

The court also criticised the State machinery, finding it had, through acts of omission and commission, "lent tacit support to the continued deprivation of the fundamental rights " of the sisters by failing to secure their release under the cover of criminal proceedings.

Directions Issued

The High Court held the father and the State of Uttar Pradesh jointly and severally liable , directing them to pay ₹25 lakh compensation to be equally divided between the sisters within eight weeks. The State may recover half from the father and half from any delinquent public servant whose acts or omissions contributed to the unlawful detention.

The father was restrained from interfering with the sisters' personal liberty, movement, residence, profession or religious choices, and was directed to hand over their passports, educational certificates, identity documents, bank records and other belongings within seven days. The court further directed State authorities to ensure no interference with the sisters' peaceful life and liberty, providing protection where required.

The court clarified that its observations were confined solely to the issue of illegal detention and would not prejudice the ongoing criminal investigation under Case Crime No. 228 of 2025, or the legality and validity of the alleged religious conversions, which remain for the competent forum to determine.