Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court, in a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Divya Bhatia alias Zoya Diya Bhatia and Anshu Bhatia alias Amina Anshu Bhatia, reiterated the constitutional protection available to adult individuals in matters concerning faith, marriage and personal liberty. Justice Sandeep Jain directed the State authorities and the women’s father to produce both women before the Court to ascertain whether they were acting of their own free will or were under illegal confinement. The Court observed that if the allegations made in the petition were ultimately found to be true, any interference with the women’s decision to embrace Islam and marry persons of their choice would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into their constitutionally protected rights.
According to the habeas corpus petition, the two women, aged 20 and 35 years respectively, voluntarily renounced Hinduism and embraced Islam without any coercion, inducement or undue influence. They further decided to marry persons of their own choice in accordance with Islamic rites. The petition alleged that their father, unhappy with their decision, lodged a criminal case under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging kidnapping, with the intention of preventing them from exercising their lawful choices. It was further alleged that, in collusion with local police authorities, the father had illegally confined both women and deprived them of their liberty. Seeking judicial intervention, the petitioners requested the Court to direct their production and release if their detention was found to be unlawful.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners contended that both women were majors, mentally competent and fully capable of making independent decisions regarding their religion, marriage and future. It was submitted that their conversion to Islam was entirely voluntary and represented an exercise of their freedom of conscience guaranteed under the Constitution. Their counsel argued that there was neither coercion nor unlawful inducement involved in the conversion, and therefore the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 had no application to the facts of the case.
The petitioners further alleged that their father had misused the criminal justice process by lodging a false FIR under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita solely to prevent them from marrying according to their own wishes. It was argued that after registration of the FIR, the father, with the assistance of local police officials, illegally confined the women and restrained them from exercising their constitutional rights. The petition therefore sought a writ of habeas corpus directing the authorities to produce the women before the Court so that their wishes could be ascertained directly.
At this preliminary stage, the State had not placed its detailed response on record. The principal issue before the Court was whether the women were under illegal restraint and whether they were acting voluntarily.
Court’s Judgment:
After considering the submissions, the Allahabad High Court found that the allegations raised important issues concerning personal liberty and constitutional freedoms. Justice Sandeep Jain observed that both women were adults and, if the assertions in the petition were ultimately established, they possessed the legal capacity to independently decide matters relating to their religion, marriage, residence and future course of life.
The Court noted that the pleadings specifically asserted that the women had voluntarily renounced Hinduism, embraced Islam and intended to solemnise marriages according to their own free choice. It observed that if these assertions were found to be true after proper verification, any attempt by their father or any other individual to interfere with those decisions would constitute an unwarranted encroachment upon their constitutionally protected rights to dignity, privacy, personal liberty and decisional autonomy.
The Bench emphasised that the primary purpose of a habeas corpus petition is to safeguard personal liberty by enabling the Court to examine whether a person is under unlawful detention. In cases involving allegations of illegal confinement of adult individuals by family members, the Court considered it necessary to directly interact with the persons concerned rather than relying solely upon rival allegations contained in pleadings.
Accordingly, the Court directed the State authorities and the women’s father to ensure that both women are produced before the Court on the scheduled date so that the Court may interact with them personally. Such interaction, the Court observed, would enable it to determine whether they were acting voluntarily, whether their conversion and intended marriages reflected their independent choice, and whether they were presently under any illegal restraint or confinement.
The Court further directed that if the women were not produced before the Court on the specified date, the concerned State authorities would be required to file personal affidavits explaining the reasons for non-compliance. The affidavits must disclose the bona fide and diligent efforts undertaken to secure their production and specify the further steps proposed to ensure compliance with the Court’s order.
The order does not decide the merits of the allegations regarding illegal confinement, conversion or marriage. Instead, it underscores the constitutional obligation of courts to independently verify whether adult individuals are exercising their choices freely and without coercion. The proceedings will continue after the production of the women before the Court, where their statements will play a crucial role in determining the legality of their present custody and the future course of the habeas corpus petition.