Back
Sets Ayush Malik Free, Upholds Right to Choose Religion and Spouse
Justice Sandeep Jain of the has ruled that a 31-year-old man who voluntarily converted to Islam and wishes to marry a Muslim woman cannot be restrained by his birth family. In a significant ruling, the Court set Ayush Malik at liberty, affirming that an adult's choice of faith and life partner is constitutionally protected under Articles 21 and 25 of the .
Freedom of Faith: Court Upholds Adult Autonomy
The case arose when Malik, a Bachelor of Pharmacy graduate, alleged he was placed under house arrest by his family after he embraced Islam in and decided to marry Chandni Qureshi. His family, particularly his father Devraj Singh Malik, opposed the conversion and marriage, leading to an FIR against Qureshi and her relatives under the . Malik filed a petition claiming , which prompted the Court to order his production.
A Clash of Wills: The Legal Battle
When produced before the Court, Malik categorically stated that he embraced Islam voluntarily in and that his decision to marry Qureshi was his own, free from coercion. He alleged that following his choice, he was threatened and confined to his home from . His father, however, claimed Malik had been brainwashed and that his conversion was not genuine, expressing concern for his son's welfare.
The Court interacted with both parties, noting the father's understandable concern but emphasizing that such concern cannot override the
of an adult.
"The choice of an adult as to whom he or she wishes to marry or with whom he or she wishes to establish a relationship is a matter of
,"
Justice Jain observed.
Legal Analysis: Constitutional Guarantees Prevail
The Court relied on , which guarantees and the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion, and , which protects . It held that a person who has attained majority is entitled to determine his faith according to his own conscience. The mere fact that the choice is unacceptable to family members does not justify curtailing it.
"The
and the
are guaranteed under
of the Constitution of India,"
the Court stated.
"Such a choice, being an expression of
and
, cannot be displaced merely because it is not acceptable to his family members."
The Court also noted that the allegations in the FIR under the UP Prohibition of Act were triggered by Malik's personal decisions, and that the criminal proceedings had already led to the arrest and subsequent bail of Qureshi and her father.
Key Observations: The Court's Pivotal Quotes
"Once an adult person has unequivocally expressed his before the Court, such choice is ordinarily entitled to be respected, unless its exercise is shown to be vitiated by circumstances recognised in law."
"The Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under of the Constitution, is not required to substitute its own perception of what would be beneficial or appropriate for the considered choice of an adult corpus."
"The concern expressed by the father regarding the welfare of his son is understandable in the context of the familial relationship; however, such concern cannot, by itself, override the of an adult person who is competent to take decisions concerning his faith, residence and choice of life partner."
The Verdict: Liberty and Choice Prevail
Finding
"no lawful justification for continuing any restraint upon the
of the corpus,"
the Court set Malik at liberty. He is now free to reside wherever he chooses, with whomever he wishes, and to profess and practise the religion of his choice. The Court also directed that he may take an appropriate decision regarding his matrimonial relationship in accordance with law.
The ruling reinforces the principle that adult autonomy in matters of faith and marriage is paramount, even when it conflicts with family expectations. It also highlights that remains a potent remedy against unlawful confinement, whether by state or private actors.
