He Allahabad High Court last week he strongly censored Additional District Magistrate for ordering repeated and unwarranted police investigations under the UP anti-conversion law against a Muslim who voluntarily converted to Hinduism
The repeated investigations were carried out simply because the petitioner’s father-in-law had initiated a criminal case against the petitioner, who was apparently opposed to his daughter’s marriage to the petitioner. Subsequently, the ADM refused the petitioner’s request for conversion.
For now, a bank of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla has suspend the order issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Prayagrajrefusing to confirm the statement of the petitioner that he voluntarily embraced ‘Sanatan Dharma’.
The Court has further directed the ADM concerned to issue an order again, adopting a pragmatic view of the matter, considering the first two reports, favoring the petitioner, as well as the Court’s own interaction with the petitioner and his wife.
Case in summary
Briefly stated, the petitioner-Anil Pandit (previously known as Mohamed Ahashan)He is an assistant professor in an institute of Allahabad University.
On January 12, 2022, he made a declaration under article 8 of the UP Prohibition of Illegal Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, showing his intention to convert. On February 11, 2022, The priest also gave declarative information to the DM about 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 investigation reports were submitted to 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 file a fresh report in the light of a criminal case registered against the petitioner by the wife’s father, even though he was not in the photo at the time of conversion.
Finally, on August 9, 2024, the ADM refused the petitioner’s application for a conversion certificate, relying on a subsequent police report of July 2024 specifying the factum of the FIR and the filing of a charge sheet against the petitioner.
In essence, on the basis of this latest report, the ADM had proceeded to assume that the petitioner had deliberately converted to marry the lady, whom he had allegedly improperly influenced or seduced.
The transaction of Rs. The ADM took 1 lakh in April 2021 between the couple as strong proof that the conversion was bad and void in law.
Arguments
Before the High Court, the counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the investigation as contemplated in the Section 8 (3) of the 2021 Act only mandates a query under the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate.
It was vehemently argued that the authority cannot order one investigation after another, as was done in the present case, especially when the initial reports filed by the police were in favor of the petitioner, establishing that he had voluntarily converted to Hinduism.
Observations of the Superior Court
To understand the matter comprehensively, the Court had a personal interaction with the petitioner and his wife and concluded that the couple had voluntarily married according to Hindu rites despite the opposition of their father.
The court took into account the wife’s clarification that the monetary transaction was simply financial assistance from a good friend during a serious family medical emergency, as she was unemployed at the time.
The petitioner also reiterated that he had a deep inclination towards Sanatan Dharma since his school days and had voluntarily converted to an Arya Samaj temple.
In this context, the court referred to the Act of 2021 and concluded that the petitioner had strictly followed the step-by-step legal procedure under Section 8.
It also took into account that the first 2 police investigations concluded explicitly in favor of the petitioner.
Therefore, the Court questioned why the ADM conducted further investigation only when his wife’s father lodged the FIR, while he and his daughter were not in the picture at the time of conversion.
The court observed that the ADM misled itself by focusing on the validity of the marriage and the criminal FIR instead of strictly checking the procedural compliance of the conversion.
The Court held that requiring the police to repeatedly file reports in response to a criminal case amounted to the ADM exercising a power not conferred on it by law.
“We do not appreciate this act or the conduct of the Additional District Magistrate because the Additional District Magistrate had nothing to do with the matter of criminal investigation, which forced the police to time and again file reports taking cognizance of a criminal case registered against the petitioner and this amounts to exercising power which is not vested in the Additional District Magistrate under the Act. The manner in which the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet itself showed that no material was collected. intrinsic at all to incriminate the plaintiff under the charge of illegal conversion. The Additional District Magistrate had nothing to do with the other charges leveled in the FIR regarding the woman being lured, seduced or unduly influenced for matrimonial purposes.“the Court remarked.
The court further clarified that mere filing of a charge sheet does not lead to the indictment of an accused. He added that guilt is a matter of trial and drawing a conclusive adverse inference against the petitioner merely based on a charge sheet was an error of law.
The Court also set aside the ADM’s finding regarding financial assistance of Rs 1 lakh as it observed that monetary transactions between friends for medical emergencies cannot be used to draw an inference of undue influence.
Therefore, granting relief to the couple, the High Court ordered that the petitioner be free to live his married life with his wife with dignity and that the police should not interfere.
The Court also stayed the ADM’s rejection order and directed the authority to pass a fresh order within three weeks. The matter is now posted for a hearing on May 27, 2026.
