Allahabad HC Awards Rs 25 Lakh Compensation to Two Sisters Who Were Kept in Illegal Confinement After Embracing Islam
It is absolutely in the fitness of things that while addressing whether parental disapproval and pending criminal investigations can justify the detention of two converted adult sisters who converted to another faith, the Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Kunwar Sultan Ali And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others in Case No.: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1079 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC:165122 that was pronounced just recently on August 6, 2026 has allowed a habeas corpus writ petition that had been filed declaring the two converted adult sisters free to reside according to their choice. It must be noted that while holding their father and the State of Uttar Pradesh jointly and severally liable for the unlawful confinement and violation of fundamental rights, the Allahabad High Court very rightly directed them to pay Rs 25 lakh in constitutional compensation to the two adult sisters who were wrongly confined. Very rightly so! It also certainly merits noting that the habeas corpus petition was instituted by Kunwar Sultan Ali and two others seeking the production and freedom of two sisters.
Allahabad High Court Directs Release of Two Adult Sisters
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold, and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Jain sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth and specifying in para 2 that, “By order dated 30.07.2026, the State was directed to produce the corpus, Ms. Diya Bhatia @ Zoya Diya Bhatia and Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia, before this Court." In compliance with the said order, both the corpus were produced before the Court by Ms. Reeta Yadav, Inspector, and Sri Manoj Kumar, S.I., Police Station Cyber Crime, Agra.”
Court Interacts With Anshu Bhatia
As we see, the Bench discloses in para 3, laying bare that "This Court interacted with the corpus, Ms. Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia, who stated that she is aged about 35 years, unmarried, and is highly educated, having obtained an M.Sc. and M.Phil. in Zoology, besides a B.Ed. degree. She further disclosed that she had also served as a lecturer."
Voluntary Embrace of Islam
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 stating that, “During the course of her interaction with the Court, the corpus stated, in clear and unequivocal terms, that in the year 2020, she voluntarily embraced Islam of her own free will and volition, with the sole object of attaining mental peace, spiritual fulfillment, and inner solace. She categorically asserted that her decision to embrace Islam was the product of her own conscious, independent, and informed choice and was neither actuated by any inducement, influence, coercion, undue persuasion, nor any extraneous consideration whatsoever.”
Father Opposed Her Religious Choice
While elaborating further on facts of the case, the Bench reveals in para 5, mentioning that, “The corpus further stated that her decision to change her faith was taken consciously and voluntarily, notwithstanding the fact that the same was contrary to the wishes of her father, respondent No. 4, Anil Kumar Bhatia." According to her, respondent No. 4 had strongly opposed her decision and had, on several occasions, attempted to persuade and prevail upon her to renounce the faith that she had voluntarily adopted. Nevertheless, she remained steadfast in her decision and unequivocally affirmed before this Court that her choice to embrace Islam was entirely voluntary and represented the exercise of her own free will and individual autonomy.”
Further, the Bench unfolds in para. 6, disclosing that "she further stated that her conversion was not actuated by any unlawful, oblique, or extraneous motive, nor was it undertaken for the benefit of any individual or organization." According to her, the conversion was a purely personal and spiritual decision flowing from the exercise of her freedom of conscience.”
Allegation of Forced Confinement
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 7 unfolding that "the corpus further disclosed that, after embracing Islam, she was forcibly confined by her father in the parental home against her expressed wishes and without her consent." She alleged that various coercive measures, including physical restraint, intimidation, and sustained mental harassment, were employed with the avowed object of compelling her to renounce the faith that she had voluntarily adopted and to revert to Hinduism. According to the corpus, she was effectively deprived of her freedom of movement and was not permitted to leave the parental home or to lead her life in accordance with her own wishes and volition.”
Court Interacts With Diya Bhatia
As things stand, the Bench then points out in para 10 that "This Court also interacted with the second corpus, Ms. Diya Bhatia @ Zoya Diya Bhatia, who disclosed that she is about 20 years of age, has completed her education up to the Intermediate level, and has attained majority. She stated that she had voluntarily embraced Islam in the year 2021 purely on account of her personal faith, conscience, mental peace, and spiritual solace, without any force, fraud, coercion, undue influence, or allurement from any person whatsoever.”
Parental Authority Cannot Override Constitutional Liberty
Needless to say, the Bench states in para 57 that "it is well settled that neither parents nor other family members can arrogate to themselves the authority to dictate the personal choices of a major individual." Upon attaining majority, parental authority yields to constitutional liberty and individual autonomy. Any restraint upon the movement or liberty of such person, except lawful authority, would constitute illegal confinement and amount to a direct infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”
Confinement for Choice of Faith Is Illegal
Do note, the Bench notes in para 58 that "From the interaction of this Court with the corpus, it stands conclusively established that both of them were unwillingly confined in their parental home and were prevented from exercising their independent choice solely because of their decision to embrace a different faith." Such confinement cannot receive the imprimatur of law and is manifestly violative of their constitutional rights.”
Article 226: And Restoration Of Liberty
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 59 that "Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the detention of the corpus by respondent No. 4 in collusion and connivance of the State was wholly illegal and without any sanction of law. Consequently, this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is duty bound to restore their liberty.”
Articles 21 and 25 Protect Liberty and Freedom of Conscience
Most forthrightly, the Bench postulates in para 60 that "it is manifest from the undisputed factual matrix and the unequivocal statements made by the corpus before this Court that respondent No. 4, despite being the father of the corpus, possessed no semblance of legal authority to curtail their liberty or to subject them to confinement against their free and informed consent. The conduct of respondent No. 4 in forcibly confining two major women within the precincts of the parental home, solely on account of their independent decision to embrace 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. Such unlawful deprivation of liberty has not merely curtailed their physical freedom but has inflicted upon them profound mental anguish, emotional trauma, psychological suffering, social isolation, and an irreparable assault upon their dignity, autonomy, and freedom of conscience, which lie at the very heart of our constitutional order.”
State Accountability for Illegal Detention
While continuing in the same vein, the Bench propounds in para 61, holding that “Equally disturbing is 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 corpus from their unlawful confinement, permitted the continuation of such illegal detention under the ostensible cover of the criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to Case Crime No. 228 of 2025. The record unmistakably reveals that the state machinery failed to discharge its constitutional obligations and, by its acts of omission and commission, lent tacit support to the continued deprivation of the fundamental rights of the corpus. 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 corpus.”
Constitutional Compensation for Fundamental Rights Violation
Most remarkably, the Bench articulates in para. 64, underscoring explicitly that "it is a settled principle of constitutional jurisprudence that where the inalienable right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 is violated by an act of illegal or arbitrary detention, this Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not powerless to fashion an appropriate public law remedy." The award of constitutional compensation has now become an integral facet of the constitutional remedial jurisprudence evolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to vindicate fundamental rights and to ensure that constitutional guarantees do not remain illusory or merely ornamental. Such compensation is neither punitive nor ex gratia; rather, it constitutes a public law remedy designed to redress the palpable violation of fundamental rights, uphold the majesty of the Constitution, preserve public confidence in the administration of justice, and enforce accountability upon those who have acted in derogation of constitutional mandates.”
Most rationally, the Bench advocates in para 65 holding precisely that, “The present case discloses an exceptionally grave and egregious violation of constitutional rights. The corpus, despite being major, educated, and legally competent women, were deprived of their liberty for a prolonged period commencing from the year 2021, solely because they exercised their constitutionally protected freedom of conscience and chose to profess a religion different from that professed by their family. Such prolonged and coercive confinement strikes at the very foundation of constitutional democracy, which recognizes the autonomy of every adult individual as sacrosanct and beyond the reach of parental or societal control. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty cannot be permitted to yield to familial disapproval, social orthodoxy, or executive apathy.”
Exemplary Constitutional Compensation for Illegal Detention
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 66 that "This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present case warrants the grant of exemplary constitutional compensation." The gravity of the infringement, the prolonged and continuous deprivation of liberty, the severe emotional and psychological trauma endured by the corpus, and the manifest failure of the State machinery to protect their fundamental rights compel this Court to invoke its public law jurisdiction so as to ensure that the constitutional promise of liberty is translated into meaningful reality.”
Adult Liberty Cannot Be Overridden By Parental Authority
It would be instructive to note that on a parting note, the Bench then hastens to add in para 67, noting that, “Before parting, this Court deems it necessary to reiterate that the Constitution does not confer upon parents a license 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. 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.”
Scope Of The Judgment And Pending Criminal Proceedings
It is worth noting that for the sake of clarity, the Bench then clarifies in para. 68, noting that "it is, however, made clear that any observation made in the present judgment is confined solely to the adjudication of the issue of illegal detention of the corpus and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 228 of 2025, or upon the legality or validity of the alleged religious conversion, which shall be examined independently by the competent court or authority in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation contained herein.”
Directions Issued By The Allahabad High Court
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then concludes by encapsulating in para 70 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment, postulating aptly that, “Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with the following directions:-
- Ms. Diya Bhatia @ Zoya Diya Bhatia and Ms. Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia are declared to be free to reside at any place and with any person of their own choice, without any interference from respondent No. 4 or any other person or the State and its functionaries.
- Respondent No. 4 and the State of Uttar Pradesh are held jointly and severally liable for the unlawful deprivation of the fundamental rights of the corpus. Accordingly, they are directed to jointly pay compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakh only) to the corpus, which is to be equally divided between them, within a period of eight weeks from the date of this judgment. It shall, however, be open to the State Government, after satisfying the aforesaid award, to recover 50% of the compensation from respondent No. 4 and the remaining 50% from any delinquent public servant whose acts or omissions have contributed to the unconstitutional deprivation of the liberty of the corpus, strictly in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity of hearing.
- Respondent No. 4 shall not, directly or indirectly, interfere with the personal liberty, movement, residence, profession, or religious choices of either of the corpus.
- The State authorities, particularly respondent Nos. 2 and 3, shall ensure that no interference is caused in the peaceful life and liberty of the corpus and, if so required, shall provide adequate protection in accordance with law.
- Respondent No. 4 is directed to hand over the passport, educational certificates, identity documents, bank passbooks, checkbooks, conversion-related documents, all such original documents, and personal belongings to the corpus within seven days from today. In the event of any difficulty, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall ensure due compliance with this direction in accordance with law.”
Conclusion: Parental Disapproval Cannot Justify Illegal Confinement
In conclusion, the sum and substance of this robust judgment by Allahabad High Court is that parental disapproval and pending criminal investigations cannot justify the detention of two adult women who had converted to another faith voluntarily and were free to reside anywhere according to their choice. While holding both the father of the two adult women and the State of Uttar Pradesh jointly and severally liable for unlawful confinement and for egregious violation of fundamental rights, the Allahabad High Court ordered them to pay Rs 25 lakh as constitutional compensation to women. We must note that the Allahabad High Court in this leading case referred to the Apex Court ruling in Home Secretary (Prison) and Others vs. H. Nilofer Nisha [(2020) 14 SCC 161], underscoring that the writ is a procedural remedy to secure individual liberty against unlawful detention by either the state or private parties.
Public Law Compensation and Article 21 Rights
To cap it all, we see that on the grant of public law compensation, the Allahabad High Court most commendably relied on landmark judgments in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Another [(1983) 4 SCC 141] and Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa and Others [(1993) 2 SCC 746], which established monetary awards as an exemplary public law remedy for gross breaches of Article 21 rights. We thus see that the Allahabad High Court most righteously held both the father and the State accountable—the father for unlawful confinement and the State machinery for inaction! Very rightly so! No denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A - 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
