Ayush Malik & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Others

Allahabad High Court   •   16 September 2026   •   2026 LiveLaw (AB) 708
Case Summary
The Allahabad High Court held that an adult’s voluntary choice of faith is protected by Article 25 of the Constitution, while the choice of a life partner forms part of personal liberty under Article 21. Family disapproval cannot, by itself, justify detention or override an adult’s free and informed decisions.
Coram: Justice Sandeep Jain
Area of Law: Constitutional Law / Personal Liberty — Article 21, Article 25, Freedom of Conscience, Choice of Faith & Choice of Life Partner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 708
Date: 16 September 2026

Legal Issue

Whether an adult who states before the Court that he has voluntarily adopted a religion and wishes to marry a person of his choice can be restrained by family members or kept under confinement due to parental opposition.

The Court considered the scope of Article 25, freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, and Article 21, personal liberty including an adult’s autonomy to choose a life partner and place of residence.

Brief Facts

Ayush Malik, aged approximately 31 years and educated up to B.Pharma, was produced before the Allahabad High Court in a habeas corpus petition.

The petition alleged that he had voluntarily renounced Hinduism and embraced Islam, and had decided to marry Chandni Qureshi. His father opposed both decisions. An FIR dated 6 June 2026 was registered against Chandni Qureshi and her relatives under Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, as well as provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The petition alleged that Ayush had been subjected to threats and unlawful confinement, and had been kept under house arrest since 4 June 2026. When produced before the Court, Ayush stated that he had voluntarily embraced Islam in 2014, without coercion, threat, undue influence or inducement, and that he intended to marry Chandni Qureshi of his own free will.

His father disputed the voluntariness of the decisions and asserted that Ayush had been influenced by others. However, the Court found no material to disbelieve Ayush’s categorical statement.

Held / Decision

The Allahabad High Court held that Ayush, being an adult, was competent to make decisions concerning his faith, residence and matrimonial relationship. The Court found no lawful justification to continue restraint on his personal liberty.

Ayush was set at liberty to reside at any place of his choice; to reside with any person of his choice; to profess and practise the religion of his choice; and to take an appropriate decision regarding his matrimonial relationship in accordance with law. The habeas corpus petition was disposed of.

The decision concerned Ayush’s liberty and voluntary choices. It did not quash or finally adjudicate the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR against Chandni Qureshi and her relatives.

Important Observations

1. Article 25 protects freedom of conscience. An adult is ordinarily entitled to determine their faith according to their own conscience. This choice cannot be displaced merely because family members do not accept it.

2. Choice of life partner is protected by Article 21. The Court reaffirmed that the choice of a person with whom an adult wishes to establish a matrimonial relationship is an integral part of life and personal liberty.

3. Family disapproval cannot override autonomy. The concern of parents may be understandable, but it cannot replace the constitutionally protected decision of a competent adult.

4. The Court must assess voluntariness. The Court interacted directly with Ayush. Since he consistently stated that his choices were voluntary and no contrary material was shown, the Court accepted his statement.

5. Article 226 habeas corpus jurisdiction protects liberty. The High Court cannot substitute its own view of what may be best for an adult in place of that person’s free and informed choice.

6. This order did not decide the FIR on merits. The decision concerned Ayush’s liberty and voluntary choices. It did not quash or finally adjudicate the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR against Chandni Qureshi and her relatives.

Full Headnote

Constitution of India — Articles 21, 25 and 226 — Habeas Corpus — Freedom of Conscience — Adult’s Choice of Religion and Life Partner — Family Opposition — Personal Liberty

The Allahabad High Court, in a habeas corpus petition, considered the liberty of a 31-year-old adult who stated that he had voluntarily embraced Islam and intended to marry a person of his choice, despite opposition from his father.

Held: Freedom of conscience and the right to profess and practise religion are protected under Article 25. An adult is ordinarily entitled to choose and follow a faith according to his conscience, unless the choice is shown to be vitiated by coercion, fraud, undue influence or other legally recognised circumstances.

The choice of a life partner is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21. Family disapproval, concern or expectations cannot independently justify restraint upon the autonomy of a competent adult.

As the corpus consistently affirmed before the Court that his choices were voluntary and no material was produced to doubt that assertion, the Court found no lawful basis for continuing restraint upon his liberty.

The corpus was set at liberty to reside where and with whom he chose, profess and practise the religion of his choice, and take an appropriate decision concerning his matrimonial relationship in accordance with law.

Habeas corpus petition disposed of.

Legal Significance

The judgment is a clear application of constitutional autonomy in the context of an adult’s choice of faith and life partner.
It confirms that:

- Article 25 protects voluntary choices of faith and religious practice.
- Article 21 protects an adult’s choice of a life partner, residence and personal associations.
- Parental opposition cannot lawfully become detention or coercive control over a competent adult.
- A habeas corpus court must focus on the adult’s voluntary statement and personal liberty.

The ruling is relevant to habeas corpus petitions, interfaith relationships, alleged forced confinement, adult autonomy and disputes where family opposition is used to restrict personal choice.

Disclaimer: This case summary and headnote are provided for informational and educational purposes. Readers should refer to the original judgment for the complete text and authoritative legal position.