Allahabad HC orders Uttar Pradesh govt to pay Rs 50,000 to man jailed in false anti-conversion case
Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court has imposed a fine of Rs 75,000 on the Uttar Pradesh government in a false anti-conversion case, directing the state to pay Rs 50,000 to the petitioner, Umed alias Ubaid Khan, who was jailed for one and a half months even after the alleged victim had stated before a magistrate that she had left home voluntarily.
A division bench of Justices Abdul Moin and Babita Rani passed the order on October 30 while hearing a petition filed by Khan and others, who were arrested under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, The Indian Express reported on Wednesday.
The petitioners had sought to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged at Matera police station in Bahraich district, accusing them of abducting a woman and attempting to convert her religion.
The bench ordered Khan’s release, noting that even after the woman had stated before a magistrate that she had gone to Delhi voluntarily to meet her daughter, the police continued the probe and kept the accused in custody.
“This petition is a glaring example of the state authorities failing and scrambling over each other in order to score brownie points,” the newspaper quoted the court as saying.
Describing the police action as “vexatious”, the bench ordered the state to pay Rs 50,000 to Khan and deposit the remaining Rs 25,000 with the court’s Legal Aid Services.
The case pertains to a complaint filed on September 13 by Pankaj Kumar, a resident of Bahraich, alleging that his wife had gone missing with jewellery and cash, and that five men, including Khan, had lured her away. Police booked the accused under Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita sections pertaining to kidnapping and under the state’s anti-conversion law.
The woman returned home and gave a statement, following which police added charges of criminal breach of trust, stolen property and a provision of the 2021 Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. Khan was arrested on September 18.
However, on September 19, the woman gave a fresh statement before the magistrate, saying that she had left home voluntarily due to “regular domestic abuse” by her husband. In this statement, she did not allege any attempt at religious conversion and handed over all her jewellery to the police. Her lawyer later told the High Court that her earlier statement had been made under threats and coercion from her husband and in-laws, the report added.
“The court, having gone through the entire records… proceeds to exercise powers vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings,” the court stated.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
