The Allahabad High Court has stayed an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Prayagraj, which had rejected a man’s plea seeking recognition of his conversion from Islam to Sanatan Dharma under the Uttar Pradesh anti-conversion law.
The bench observed that earlier police inquiries had already found the conversion to be voluntary and questioned why repeated inquiries were ordered after an FIR was lodged by the woman’s father.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mohammad Ahashan, also known as Anil Pandit, approached the High Court after the ADM rejected his application under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
According to court records, the petitioner claimed he had voluntarily embraced Sanatan Dharma in 2022 after following the legal procedure laid down under the Act. He later married Aparna Bajpai according to Hindu customs. The couple informed the court that they were living together and expecting a child.
During the hearing, the bench interacted separately with both the petitioner and his wife in chambers. Aparna Bajpai stated that she had married the petitioner voluntarily despite opposition from her father. She also denied allegations that she had been pressured into the relationship or marriage.
The petitioner told the court that he had been inclined toward Sanatan traditions since his school days and had formally converted through rituals conducted at an Arya Samaj temple in 2022.
The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla noted that the petitioner had complied with procedural requirements under Section 8 of the 2021 Act by submitting prior declarations before conversion. The bench also pointed out that the first two police inquiry reports clearly stated that the conversion was voluntary and free from coercion or undue influence.
Referring to the ADM’s decision to seek repeated reports after an FIR was filed, the bench said:
“We do not appreciate this act and conduct of the Additional District Magistrate.”
The judges observed that the ADM appeared to have been influenced by the criminal case and charge sheet rather than examining whether the conversion itself was voluntary under the statute.
The court further remarked that merely filing a charge sheet does not establish guilt. It observed:
“Mere filing of the charge-sheet does not result in indictment of the accused of the alleged offence.”
The bench also found no material showing that the petitioner had converted under pressure or had illegally influenced the woman into marriage. It held that monetary assistance given by the petitioner to Aparna Bajpai during her mother’s illness could not automatically be treated as evidence of coercion.
The High Court kept the writ petition pending but stayed the ADM’s August 9, 2024 order rejecting the conversion application. The bench directed the ADM, Prayagraj, to reconsider the matter afresh within three weeks while taking into account the earlier police reports and the court’s interaction with the couple.
The court also said the petitioner and his wife were free to live together with dignity and directed the police not to interfere in their married life.
Case Details
Case Title: Anil Pandit @ Mohammad Ahashan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case Number: WRIT-C No. 33740 of 2024
Judges: Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla
Decision Date: May 5, 2026
