Father’s Concern Regarding Adult Son’s Welfare Can’t Override His Constitutionally Protected Autonomy To Decide Faith: Allahabad High Court

The High Court was considering a habeas corpus petition of a man who had embraced Islamic faith.

The Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Jain held, “The freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion are guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, subject to the limitations contained therein. A person who has attained majority is ordinarily entitled to determine his faith according to his own conscience. Such a choice, being an expression of individual autonomy and freedom of conscience, cannot be displaced merely because it is not acceptable to his family members.”

“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 constitutionally protected autonomy of an adult person who is competent to take decisions concerning his faith, residence and choice of life partner”, it added.

Factual Background

The corpus, Ayush Malik, aged about 31 years and educated up to B.Pharma, stated that he voluntarily embraced Islam in the year 2014 and his decision to do so was taken of his own free will, without any coercion, threat, undue influence or inducement from any person. He further stated that, after embracing Islam, he had been following the essential practices of the said faith, though his decision was not acceptable to his parents and other family members. Malik decided to enter into a matrimonial relationship with one Chandni Qureshi and intended to solemnize marriage with her. However, his decision was not acceptable to his parents.

According to him, owing to his decision to marry, an FIR was registered under Sections 5(1) and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and Sections 308(5), 351(3), 61(2), 338, 336(3) and 318(4) of the B.N.S. It was further alleged that he was subjected to threats and unlawful confinement and was kept under house arrest. It was his case that the criminal proceedings initiated against the woman and her relatives were a consequence of his said choice.

Reasoning

On interacting with Malik, the Bench noted that he had attained the age of majority and was capable of taking decisions concerning his own life. It was noted that his categorical statement was that he had voluntarily embraced Islam and such decision was neither induced nor occasioned by any threat, coercion, undue influence or pressure. “Nothing has been brought on record which may persuade this Court to disbelieve the statement made by the corpus in the course of his interaction with the Court”, it added.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the woman and her father, against whom the FIR was lodged, were arrested in connection with the said case and were subsequently enlarged on bail by the District and Sessions Judge, Shamli. The Bench took note of the materials indicating that the corpus had been residing under police presence at his house and was produced before the Court pursuant to the directions issued in the proceedings.

“Once an adult person has unequivocally expressed his free will and choice 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 Article 226 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”, it stated.

Thus, finding no lawful justification for continuing any restraint upon the personal liberty of the corpus, the Bench ordered, “He is, therefore, set at liberty to reside at such place as he may choose and with such person as he may, of his own free will, choose to reside with. He shall also be at liberty to profess and practise the religion of his choice and to take an appropriate decision regarding his matrimonial relationship in accordance with law”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Ayush Malik v. State of U.P. And 3 Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:194390)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Deepak Singh, Mohammad Khalid, Umar Khalid

Respondent: Advocates Sindhuja Rathi Bhargava, Vibhu Rai, Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order