The Court spoke to the man directly. He told it he had embraced Islam in 2014 of his own free will, intended to marry a woman of his choice, and had been confined by his family over those decisions. His father said the son had been influenced and that he feared for his welfare. Holding that an adult is entitled to determine his own faith and choose his own partner, and finding nothing to doubt the voluntariness of his choices, the Court found no lawful basis to continue any restraint on his liberty and set him free.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has set at liberty a 31-year-old man, held to have been restrained by his family after he converted to Islam and decided to marry a woman of his choice, holding that the constitutionally protected autonomy of an adult to determine his faith and his life partner cannot be overridden merely because those choices are unacceptable to his family [Ayush Malik and Another v. State of U.P. and Others].
Justice Sandeep Jain disposed of the habeas corpus petition after directing the production of the man before the Court and interacting with both him and his father.
The background
The petition was filed by a friend of the man, described in the proceedings as the corpus, alleging that he was being unlawfully detained by his father with the assistance of the State machinery. According to the petition, the man had of his own free will renounced Hinduism and embraced Islam without coercion, and had then decided to marry against his father’s wishes, following which the father lodged an FIR in June 2026 at Shamli under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, against the woman he intended to marry and her relatives.
By an earlier order, the Court had directed that the man be produced before it, finding the allegations of illegal detention serious enough to warrant immediate consideration. He was produced by the police in compliance.
What the man told the Court
Interacting with the Court, the man, aged about 31 and educated to B.Pharma level, stated that he had voluntarily embraced Islam in 2014, of his own free will and without coercion, threat, undue influence or inducement, and had since been following the essential practices of the faith, though his decision was not acceptable to his parents and family.
He stated that he had decided to enter into a matrimonial relationship with the woman concerned, that this too was unacceptable to his parents, and that the FIR had been registered because of that decision. He alleged that he had been subjected to threats and unlawful confinement and kept under house arrest from early June 2026, and categorically asserted that he was under no coercion, threat, undue influence or pressure, that he had applied his mind independently, and that his decisions to profess Islam and to marry were voluntary.
The father’s position
The Court also interacted with the father, who refuted his son’s allegations. He stated that his son had been influenced or brainwashed by certain persons and had not, in his view, voluntarily embraced Islam. He said he was concerned about his son’s welfare and, for that reason, did not approve of the decisions to embrace Islam or to marry, considering them not to be in his son’s interest. The son disputed these assertions and reiterated that his decisions were taken voluntarily and after due deliberation.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court proceeded from the man’s majority and capacity to decide for himself. From the interaction, it observed, it was apparent that he had attained the age of majority and was capable of taking decisions concerning his own life, and nothing had been brought on record to persuade the Court to disbelieve his categorical statement that his conversion was voluntary and uncoerced.
Setting out the constitutional framework, the Court held that the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion are guaranteed under Article 25, and that 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.”
On the choice of partner, the Court held that the right to choose the person with whom one wishes to establish a matrimonial relationship is an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and that the choice of an adult in this regard is a matter of individual autonomy that the wishes of the family cannot, by itself, curtail.
The Court noted that the woman and her father, against whom the FIR had been lodged, had been arrested in that case and later released on bail by the Sessions Judge. It emphasised that once an adult has unequivocally expressed his free will and choice before the Court, that choice is ordinarily entitled to be respected unless shown to be vitiated by circumstances recognised in law, and that in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 it is not required to substitute its own perception of what would be beneficial for the considered choice of an adult.
The father’s concern for his son’s welfare, the Court said, was understandable in the context of the familial relationship, but could not by itself override the constitutionally protected autonomy of an adult competent to take decisions concerning his faith, residence and choice of life partner.
Finding no lawful justification to continue any restraint on his personal liberty, the Court set him at liberty to reside where and with whom he chose, to profess and practise the religion of his choice, and to take an appropriate decision regarding his marriage in accordance with law.
Why it matters
The order is a clear application of a principle the higher courts have restated many times: that an adult’s decisions about faith, residence and marriage belong to the adult, and that neither the family nor the State may substitute its own view of the person’s best interests for the person’s own considered choice. What gives this order its weight is the method. Rather than deciding on affidavits, the Court had the man produced and spoke to him directly, and rested its conclusion on his own categorical statements and on the absence of any material contradicting them. In habeas corpus matters of this kind, that direct judicial verification, was the person confined, and is the choice genuinely his, is the safeguard the process exists to provide.
The father’s position is treated with evident respect rather than dismissed, and that too is significant. The Court accepted that his concern for his son was understandable and genuine, and framed the outcome not as a rebuke to a parent but as the necessary consequence of the son’s majority. A parent’s love and worry, the order recognises, are real; they simply do not create a legal power to confine or to override an adult child’s constitutionally protected choices.
The case also sits against the backdrop of the UP anti-conversion law, under which the FIR was registered. That statute regulates conversions procured by force, misrepresentation or inducement; it does not prohibit a voluntary change of faith by a competent adult. The Court’s finding, on interaction, that this conversion was voluntary is directed to the habeas corpus question of the man’s liberty and does not itself decide the criminal case, which concerns the woman and her relatives and stands on its own footing, they having already been granted bail. What the order settles is narrower and important: that the man is free, and that his choices of faith and partner are his to make.
Case Title: Ayush Malik and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1307 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Sandeep Jain, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Order Directing Production: September 9, 2026 | Final Order: September 16, 2026
Status: Habeas corpus petition disposed of. Corpus set at liberty to determine his faith, residence and marriage. The related criminal case against other persons is unaffected.