Court affirms adult women’s freedom of choice

The Allahabad High Court has said no person can interfere with the voluntary decision of adult women to change their religion, marry partners of their choice or determine the course of their lives.

Justice Sandeep Jain made the observation while hearing a habeas corpus petition concerning two sisters who were allegedly confined by their father after embracing Islam and deciding to marry men they had chosen. The women, aged about 20 and 35, have been ordered to appear before the court on August 6.

The court said the women appeared to be adults capable of independently deciding matters involving their faith, marriage, residence and future. However, it stressed that their personal appearance was necessary to establish whether the decisions attributed to them were voluntary and whether they were being held against their will.

The petition was filed in the case of Kunwar Sultan Ali and two others versus the State of Uttar Pradesh and three others. It alleged that the sisters had renounced Hinduism and embraced Islam without force, coercion, inducement, misrepresentation or undue influence.

They had also independently decided to solemnise marriages with partners of their choice, the petitioners submitted.

Their father allegedly opposed the decisions and lodged a first information report at Sadar Bazar police station in Agra under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The provision deals with kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her marriage.

The plea further alleged that the father, acting with the assistance of local police officers, had confined the sisters and restricted their movement. These allegations have yet to be tested by the court, which has issued notice to the father and directed the authorities to secure the women’s presence.

Justice Jain observed that if the claims made in the petition were found to be correct, interference by the father or any other person would constitute an unwarranted encroachment on constitutionally protected rights.

Those protections include dignity, privacy, personal liberty and decisional autonomy. The court’s remarks underline the principle that an adult’s freedom of conscience and choice cannot be overridden merely because relatives disapprove of the decision.

The bench, however, stopped short of accepting the petitioners’ version without verification. It said the primary responsibility of a court considering a habeas corpus petition was to determine whether the persons concerned were acting freely or remained subject to illegal detention or restraint.

Direct interaction with the sisters would enable the court to assess their wishes and the legality of their present custody. Uttar Pradesh authorities and the women’s father were therefore directed to produce them at the next hearing.

The court warned that if the sisters were not produced, the police officers concerned would be required to submit personal affidavits explaining the failure. The affidavits must detail the genuine, diligent and effective steps taken to locate and present the women, along with any additional measures proposed to comply with the order.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, did not apply because the alleged conversions were not secured through prohibited means. The legislation criminalises conversion carried out through force, fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, allurement or undue influence.

The law also provides stricter punishment in cases involving women, minors and members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Its provisions were tightened through amendments that increased penalties and expanded the category of people permitted to report suspected unlawful conversions.

At the same time, the legislation does not eliminate an adult’s constitutional freedom to profess, practise or adopt a religion voluntarily. The central question in such disputes is whether consent was genuine or the result of pressure, deception or exploitation.

Courts have repeatedly treated the choice of an adult partner as an element of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Judicial rulings have also held that family opposition, social convention or differences of religion and caste cannot by themselves justify restraining two consenting adults.

The Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to choose a spouse is integral to individual autonomy and dignity. It has maintained that neither the state nor relatives may dictate an adult’s intimate and personal decisions, provided the choices comply with the law.