Allahabad High Court Intervention Leads to Approval of Religious Conversion Application

By Rajesh Pandey

In a significant development highlighting the importance of individual freedom and constitutional rights, the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Prayagraj, has approved the religious conversion application of a Muslim man who voluntarily embraced Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism) in 2022.

The decision came after the Allahabad High Court earlier expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the matter had been handled by the district administration and directed authorities to reconsider the case.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla took note of the latest administrative order while hearing a petition filed by Anil Pandit, formerly known as Mohammad Ahashan.

Pandit, who serves as an Assistant Professor at an institution affiliated with the University of Allahabad, had approached the court after facing prolonged delays and administrative hurdles in obtaining formal recognition of his religious conversion.

During the proceedings, the court was informed that the Additional District Magistrate had finally approved the conversion application through an order issued on May 14.

Taking this development on record, the bench disposed of the petition on May 27, bringing an end to a legal battle that had continued for several years despite earlier investigations confirming the voluntary nature of the conversion.

According to the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Ashish Srivastava, the High Court had previously intervened on May 5 and directed the district administration to reconsider the application with a practical and objective approach.

The court had specifically instructed authorities to evaluate the matter in light of earlier police inquiry reports, both of which concluded that the conversion had been carried out voluntarily and without coercion, inducement or undue influence.

The court’s earlier observations were particularly significant because the judges had personally interacted with both the petitioner and his wife.

Based on these interactions, as well as the findings of official inquiries, the bench had indicated that there was no apparent evidence suggesting that the conversion had been forced or undertaken for unlawful purposes.

In the same hearing, the High Court also provided protection to the couple, affirming their right to live together with dignity and without interference.

The judges directed local police authorities not to harass or disturb the couple and instructed the competent authority to pass a fresh decision on the conversion application within three weeks.

Court records reveal that the process began more than three years ago. On January 12, 2022, the petitioner formally submitted a declaration under Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, expressing his intention to adopt Hinduism.

The declaration was made in accordance with the legal procedure prescribed under the state’s conversion law.

Subsequently, on February 11, 2022, a priest associated with the religious ceremony informed the district authorities about the proposed conversion ritual, fulfilling another statutory requirement under the law.

A month later, on March 14, 2022, the conversion ceremony was conducted at an Arya Samaj temple, where the petitioner formally embraced Sanatan Dharma.

Following the conversion, police inquiries were conducted as part of the verification process. Between 2022 and 2023, two separate investigation reports were submitted to the district administration.

Both reports concluded that the conversion had been voluntary and that there was no evidence of force, fraud, coercion or unlawful inducement.

Despite these findings, the matter became complicated when authorities sought an additional police report after taking note of a criminal case filed by the father of the petitioner’s wife.

The complaint was lodged after the conversion and marriage had already taken place. Critics of the administrative process argued that the subsequent inquiry shifted focus away from the original question of whether the conversion itself had been voluntary.

The controversy deepened when the Additional District Magistrate rejected the application on August 9, 2024. The rejection was based largely on a later police report submitted in July 2024, which referred to the existence of the criminal case and a charge sheet filed against the petitioner.

Relying on these developments, the administration inferred that the conversion may have been linked to the petitioner’s relationship with a Hindu woman and questioned the legitimacy of the conversion process.

The administrative order also cited a financial transaction of ₹1 lakh between the couple in April 2021 as a factor raising suspicion.

Authorities interpreted the transaction as a circumstance warranting further scrutiny and ultimately used it as one of the grounds to deny the conversion certificate.

However, the High Court appeared unconvinced by this reasoning. During the hearing, the judges emphasised the importance of evaluating the conversion based on evidence directly related to the conversion process itself rather than relying on assumptions or unrelated developments that occurred later.

The court’s intervention ultimately paved the way for a fresh review and the eventual approval of the application.

The case has drawn considerable attention because it touches upon broader constitutional questions involving personal liberty, freedom of conscience and the right of individuals to choose their faith.

Legal experts say the decision reinforces the principle that administrative authorities must base their decisions on objective evidence and cannot disregard clear findings without sufficient justification.

With the conversion application now approved, the case marks the conclusion of a prolonged legal and administrative struggle for the petitioner.

It also serves as an important reminder of the judiciary’s role in protecting individual rights and ensuring that administrative decisions remain consistent with constitutional values and the rule of law.