If marriage follows ‘unlawful conversion’, it must be invalid: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that when a religious conversion is unlawful, any marriage based on such a conversion will automatically be invalid, stating the man and woman involved then "cannot be recognised as a married couple in the eyes of law".

In the judgement by Justice Saurabh Srivastava, it was clarified that both petitioners “are entitled to perform marriage under the Special Marriage Act”, however, regardless of conversion status, since that law does not require religious conversion and upholds secular principles.

In the case before the court, one Mohammad Bin Qasim, a Muslim, and one Jainab Parveen alias Chandrakanta, originally Hindu, approached the court to seek protection for their marital life. According to their counsel, Chandrakanta had accepted Islam and had been issued a certificate for conversion by the Khanqahe Alia Arifia. The couple were then married as per Islamic rituals and received a marriage certificate from a local qazi.

However, the state’s legal representative argued that the conversion certificate was fictitious — for the Khanqahe Alia Arifia management denied issuing any such document. The court found that “conversion on a forged document cannot determine any of the essential ingredients as mentioned in the Uttar Pradesh Unlawful Conversion Act”.

Furthermore, the order held, “such marriage solemnised between the petitioners is also not sustainable in the eyes of law since, as per the Muslim law, marriage is a contract between the follower and believer of the same religion. Once the conversion in respect of Petitioner No. 2 (Chandrakanta) is illegal, both the petitioners cannot be recognised as a married couple in the eyes of law”.

The court highlighted that the couple could still legally marry under the Special Marriage Act, which was designed by India’s founding leaders as a means to guarantee secular, civil unions irrespective of faith — reflecting the nation’s Constitutional commitment to equality and religious freedom — and such a marriage would be valid regardless of Chandrakanta / Jainab Parveen’s religious affiliation.

This legal episode is situated, of course, in the context India’s broader and often contentious history of anti-conversion laws. Several Indian states have enacted statutes — locally called ‘freedom of religion’ or ‘anti-conversion’ laws — in recent decades that (ironically) place restrictions on changing one’s faith, especially for the purpose of marriage. These laws have been criticised as contravening the fundamental right to freedom of religion (Article 25) and the right to equality (Article 14) enshrined in the Constitution, undermining the secular ideals upon which the republic was founded.

India’s Supreme Court and various high courts have, over the decades, given conflicting judgements on the interplay between such anti-conversion statutes, religious personal laws and the secular Special Marriage Act — frequently thrusting the judiciary itself into debates over the boundaries of religious freedom, state power and secularism in modern India.

In the present matter, the Allahabad High Court has directed that until the petitioners’ marriage is lawfully solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, the woman petitioner should remain in a women’s protection home, as she did not wish to stay with her parents. The court has also imposed an exemplary cost on the petitioner’s counsel for the legal proceedings.

This verdict, while affirming procedural safeguards in the state of Uttar Pradesh against ‘fraudulent conversions’ — oft cited as ‘love jihad’ in right-wing and fundamentalist political rhetoric — also underscores how anti-conversion laws clearly conflict with India’s own Constitutional promises.

And so, the debate on personal freedoms, secular marriage rights and the state's reach into matters of conscience and intimacy continue.