The Allahabad High Court last week strongly censured an Additional District Magistrate for ordering unwarranted and repeated police inquiries under the UP’s anti-conversion law against a Muslim Man who voluntarily converted to Hinduism
The repeated inquiries were sought merely because a criminal case was lodged against the applicant by his father-in-law, who was apparently opposed to his daughter’s marriage to the petitioner. Later, the ADM rejected the petitioner’s conversion application.
For now, a bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla has put in abeyance the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Prayagraj, refusing to confirm the declaration of the petitioner who voluntarily embraced ‘Sanatan Dharma’.
The Court has further directed the concerned ADM to pass an order afresh, taking a pragmatic view of the matter, considering the first two reports, favouring the petitioner, as well as the Court’s own interaction with the petitioner and his wife.
Case in brief
Briefly put, the petitioner-Anil Pandit (earlier known as Mohammad Ahashan), is an Assistant Professor at an institute of the Allahabad University.
On January 12, 2022, he made a declaration under Section 8 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, showing his intent to convert. On February 11, 2022, the priest also gave declaratory information to the DM regarding the upcoming conversion ritual. Finally, on March 14, 2022, the conversion rituals were performed at an Arya Samaj Temple.
Between 2022 and 2023, two police inquiry reports were submitted before the DM confirming that the conversion was voluntary and without undue influence.
However, despite these clear findings in the police reports, the ADM again asked the police to submit a further report in light of a criminal case registered against the petitioner by the wife’s father, even though he was not in the picture at the time of the conversion.
Ultimately, on August 9, 2024, the ADM rejected the petitioner’s application for a conversion certificate, relying on a subsequent police report from July 2024 that specified the factum of the FIR and the filing of a charge-sheet against the petitioner.
In essence, on the basis of this last report, the ADM had proceeded to assume that the petitioner deliberately got himself converted in order to get married to the lady, whom he had allegedly unduly influenced or enticed away.
The transaction of Rs. 1 lakh in April 2021 between the couple was taken by the ADM as stark evidence that the conversion was bad and void in law.
Arguments
Before the High Court, it was primarily contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the inquiry as contemplated under Section 8(3) of the 2021 Act only mandates one inquiry to be held by the District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate.
It was vehemently argued that the authority cannot order inquiry after inquiry, as was done in the present case, especially when the initial reports submitted by the police were in favour of the petitioner, establishing that he had voluntarily converted to Hinduism.
High Court’s observations
To understand the matter comprehensively, the Court held a personal interaction with the petitioner as well as his wife and found that the couple had voluntarily married as per Hindu rites despite her father’s opposition.
The bench took into account the wife’s clarification that the monetary transaction was merely financial help from a good friend during a severe family medical emergency, as she was unemployed at the time.
The petitioner also reiterated that he had a deep inclination toward Sanatan Dharma since his school days and he had voluntarily converted at an Arya Samaj Temple.
Against this backdrop, the bench referred to the 2021 Act and found that the petitioner had strictly followed the step-by-step statutory procedure under Section 8.
It also took into account that the first 2 police inquiries explicitly concluded in Favour of the petitioner.
Therefore, the Court questioned why the ADM directed a subsequent inquiry only upon the FIR being filed by the father of his wife, while he and his daughter were not in the picture at the time of conversion.
The bench observed that the ADM misled herself by focusing on the validity of the marriage and the criminal FIR instead of strictly verifying the procedural compliance of the conversion.
The Court held that requiring the police to repeatedly submit reports in response to a criminal case amounted to the ADM exercising power not vested in her under the Act.
“We do not appreciate this act and conduct of the Additional District Magistrate for the reason that the Additional District Magistrate had nothing to do with the criminal investigation matter forcing the police to again and again submit report taking notice of a criminal case registered against the applicant and this amounts to exercising a power not vested with the Additional District Magistrate under the Act. The manner in which the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet itself showed that no intrinsic material was collected at all to frame the applicant into the charge of illegal conversion. The Additional District Magistrate had nothing to do with the other charges levelled in the FIR regarding the woman being lured or otherwise enticed away or unduly influenced for the purposes of marriage,” the Court remarked.
The bench further clarified that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does not result in the indictment of an accused. It added that guilt is a subject matter of trial, and drawing a conclusive adverse inference against the petitioner based merely on a charge-sheet was erroneous in law.
The Court also dismissed the ADM’s conclusion regarding the Rs 1 lakh financial help as it observed that monetary transactions between friends for medical emergencies cannot be used to draw an inference of undue influence.
Thus, granting relief to the couple, the High Court directed that the petitioner is at liberty to live his married life with his wife with dignity, and the police shall not interfere.
The Court also placed the ADM’s rejection order in abeyance and directed the authority to pass a fresh order within three weeks. The matter is now posted for a hearing on May 27, 2026.
