PRAYAGRAJ, Aug. 11 -- The Allahabad high court has ordered the father of two adult sisters and the Uttar Pradesh government to jointly pay Rs 25 lakh compensation after holding that the women were illegally confined at their parental home following their decision to convert from Hinduism to Islam. The court said that both sisters are free to reside at any place and with any person of their own choice, without any interference from their father or any other person. The court further directed the women's father to hand over the passport, educational certificates, identity documents, bank passbooks, cheque books, conversion-related documents and personal belongings to both women within seven days. However, the court clarified that the investigation into an FIR registered by the sisters' father regarding forcible conversion of both women would proceed strictly in accordance with the law and remain uninfluenced by its observations in the present proceedings. Justice Sandeep Jain passed the order while allowing a habeas corpus petition concerning Diya Bhatia alias Zoya Diya Bhatia (20) and Anshu Bhatia alias Amina Anshu Bhatia (35). The order was passed after the two women told the high court that they had voluntarily embraced Islam - Anshu in 2020 and Diya in 2021 - out of their own faith, conscience, mental peace and spiritual solace. They alleged that their father subsequently confined them in the parental home against their wishes because of their decision to change their faith. After interacting with both women, the court recorded that their responses were "spontaneous, coherent and unequivocal" and that nothing emerged to indicate that either was acting under coercion, fear, inducement or undue influence. The court observed, "Once an individual attains majority, the Constitution recognises her autonomy to take decisions relating to faith, belief, residence, association and every other facet of personal liberty, subject only to restrictions sanctioned by law." Counsel for the state government opposed the habeas corpus petition while relying on an FIR lodged by the father of the women alleging forcible and deceitful conversion from Hinduism to Islam. It was argued by the state government counsel that the alleged conversion formed part of a larger organised conspiracy having ramifications for the "sovereignty, integrity and unity of the nation", and that releasing the women could prejudice the ongoing investigation. The high court, however, found that the question of whether the conversion complied with the 2021 Act could not justify their continued confinement. Justice Jain observed that upon attaining majority, parental authority has to yield to constitutional liberty and individual autonomy. "Any restraint upon the movement or liberty of such person, except lawful authority, would constitute illegal confinement and amount to a direct infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution," the court remarked. In its order dated August 6, the court also found fault with the State machinery for failing to protect the women's liberty. The court remarked that the State, instead of securing their release, had permitted the illegal detention to continue under the cover of the criminal proceedings and had, through its acts of omission and commission, "lent tacit support to the continued deprivation of the fundamental rights" of the women. The court remarked: "The Constitution does not confer upon parents a licence to incarcerate their major children merely because they disapprove of their faith, beliefs or personal choices. The Constitutional rights cannot be eclipsed by parental authority, social morality or majoritarian sentiment." "Equally disturbing is the conduct of the State and its instrumentalities. The State, which bears the highest constitutional obligation as the sentinel and protector of the life and liberty of every citizen, instead of securing the release of the corpus from their unlawful confinement, permitted the continuation of such illegal detention under the ostensible cover of the criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to Case Crime No. 228 of 2025. The record unmistakably reveals that the State machinery failed to discharge its constitutional obligations and, by its acts of omission and commission, lent tacit support to the continued deprivation of the fundamental rights of the corpus. Such executive inaction and constitutional indifference cannot receive judicial approbation and renders the State equally accountable in public law for the violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the corpus," the high court said....