Maintaining that the Constitution does not give parents the right to incarcerate their adult children merely because they disapprove of their faith, the Allahabad High Court ordered to release two Agra-based sisters allegedly confined in home by their father for the last one year for having embraced Islam.
The Agra police had traced the two sisters, aged 35 and 20, to Kolkata in West Bengal last year and arrested at least a dozen people from another community over allegations of abduction and forced marriage.
Calling the episode “wholly illegal” and an “unlawful deprivation of fundamental rights”, the court also directed the women’s father and the Uttar Pradesh government to jointly pay a compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the aggrieved sisters who purportedly embraced Islam in 2020 and 2021 before escaping their home last year.
Then their father got a police case registered, alleging abduction for forced marriage.
After the Agra police brought them back from Kolkata, stringent charges like “purposely or knowingly endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of the country, being part of an organised syndicate”, and provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act were invoked against the arrested accused who belonged to the Muslim community.
While the accused have been lodged in jail since, police had handed over the two women to their father, said their lawyer Ali Bin Saif.
After the two women recorded their statement in the court, alleging confinement and harassment for embracing Islam, a single bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed in order dated August 6, “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. Constitutional rights cannot be eclipsed by parental authority, social morality or majoritarian sentiment.”
Justice Jain added, “The liberty of an adult individual is inviolable, and any attempt to suppress that liberty by force or coercion invites the constitutional scrutiny of this court and attracts appropriate public law consequences, including the award of monetary compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights.”
The sisters told the bench that they voluntarily embraced Islam and had taken the decision to change their faith consciously and it was “neither actuated by any inducement, influence, coercion, undue persuasion nor any extraneous consideration whatsoever”.
They further alleged that they had been forcibly confined by their father in their parental home and were subjected to “physical restraint, intimidation and sustained mental harassment”, forcing them to renounce their faith and to revert to Hinduism.
Their passports, educational certificates, identity documents, bank passbooks, cheque books, conversion-related documents and other personal belongings were taken in possession by their father, they further claimed.
While the elder sister is an M.Sc, M.Phil and Bed degrees holder, the younger sibling is a Class 12 passout.
Their counsel, Ali Bin Saif, told the Indian Express, their father came to know about their conversion to Islam in 2021 and forcibly confined the two in house until they escaped last year.
Appearing for the state government, Additional Advocate General (AAG) submitted before the court that the alleged conversion was part of “a larger and organised conspiracy having far-reaching ramifications upon the sovereignty, integrity and unity of the nation”.
Meanwhile, the investigators claimed to have found material indicating the involvement of people “acting pursuant to a well-orchestrated design aimed at disturbing the social fabric of the country through unlawful religious conversions”.
They also claimed to have found material suggesting the involvement of foreign entities and external influences in the alleged conversion process.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the apprehension about the alleged impact of the conversion upon the sovereignty, integrity and unity of the nation is wholly speculative and “unsupported by any cogent material”.
How can conversion of two adult women pose any threat to the sovereignty or integrity of the country, he questioned.
The bench, after hearing the submissions, stated that it found it difficult to accept the state government’s main contention that the alleged conversion of the women from Hinduism to Islam forms part of a larger conspiracy, having a potential to “threaten the sovereignty, integrity and unity of the nation”.
The court also found the responses of the two women “spontaneous, coherent and unequivocal”, saying nothing indicated that “either of them was acting under coercion, fear, inducement or undue influence”.
The bench observed, “The conduct of the women’s father in forcibly confining two major women for embracing a faith of their choice, constitutes a flagrant affront to the rule of law and a gross, deliberate and continuing infringement of the inviolable guarantees enshrined under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.”
The court further said that equally disturbing was the conduct of the “state and its instrumentalities”.
“The State, which bears the highest constitutional obligation as the sentinel and protector of the life and liberty of every citizen, instead of securing the release of the women from their unlawful confinement, permitted the continuation of such illegal detention under the ostensible cover of the criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to the case registered. The record unmistakably reveals that the State machinery failed to discharge its constitutional obligations. Such executive inaction and constitutional indifference cannot receive judicial approbation and renders the State equally accountable in public law for the violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the women,” it added.
Holding that the detention of the women by their father in “collusion and connivance” of the State was wholly illegal and ordered to restore their liberty, the HC said directed that the investigation into the case should proceed strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observation made in the present proceedings.
The bench however, allowed the state government to recover 50% of the compensation from the father and the remaining 50% from “any public servant whose acts or omissions contributed to the unconstitutional deprivation of the liberty of the women”.
Share
