HC pulls up Prayagraj admin over repeated anti‑conversion inquiries

Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has pulled up the Prayagraj district administration for ordering unwarranted and repeated police inquiries under the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, against a Muslim man who voluntarily converted to Hinduism.

A division bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla placed in abeyance the order of the additional district magistrate (administration), Prayagraj, which refused to confirm the petitioner’s declaration of conversion to Sanatan Dharma.

The court directed the ADM to pass a fresh order, taking a pragmatic view of the matter.

The case pertains to Anil Pandit, earlier known as Mohammad Ahashan, an assistant professor at an institute of Allahabad University. He had submitted a declaration under Section 8 of the 2021 Act on Jan 12, 2022, expressing his intention to convert. A priest subsequently informed the district magistrate on Feb 11, 2022, about the proposed conversion ceremony, which was performed on March 14, 2022, at an Arya Samaj temple.

Between 2022 and 2023, two police inquiry reports were submitted to the district magistrate, both concluding that the conversion was voluntary.

Despite this, the ADM ordered another inquiry after a criminal case was registered against the petitioner on a complaint by his Hindu father‑in‑law, who was opposed to his daughter’s marriage.

Relying on a subsequent police report submitted in July 2024, which referred to the FIR and the filing of a charge sheet, the ADM rejected the petitioner’s application for confirmation of conversion on Aug 9, 2024.

The authority presumed that the petitioner had converted deliberately to marry the woman and cited a Rs 1 lakh monetary transaction between the couple in April 2021 as evidence to hold the conversion bad and void in law.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that section 8(3) of the Act contemplates only one inquiry by the district magistrate or additional district magistrate, and that repeated inquiries were impermissible in law.

To assess the matter, the high court interacted personally with the petitioner and his wife and found that the couple had voluntarily married according to Hindu rites despite opposition from the woman’s father.

The court also took note of the wife’s submission that the monetary transfer was financial assistance from a close friend during a family medical emergency, as she was unemployed at the time. The petitioner reiterated that he had a long‑standing inclination towards Sanatan Dharma and had converted voluntarily.

Observing that the statutory procedure under section 8 had been strictly followed and that the first two police inquiries were in favour of the petitioner, the court questioned the justification for ordering a fresh inquiry solely on the basis of an FIR lodged by the wife’s father, who, along with his daughter, was not involved in the conversion process.

Granting interim relief, the high court, in its order dated May 5, directed that the petitioner is at liberty to live his married life with his wife with dignity and that the police shall not interfere. It also directed the ADM to pass a fresh order within three weeks.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 27, 2026.