Allahabad High Court Upholds Religious Freedom in Ayush Malik Case; Police File FIR Over Social Media Posts

The Allahabad high court has reaffirmed the constitutional protections of personal liberty and religious choice in a recent ruling. The court ordered the release of 31-year-old Ayush Malik from his family's custody, determining that his conversion from Hinduism to Islam was a voluntary act of an adult [2].

Constitutional Right to Autonomy

The case originated from a dispute where Mr. Malik's father, Devraj Malik, alleged that his son was coerced into converting to Islam by Chandni Qureshi and her family to secure property [1]. This led to an FIR under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

However, Justice Sandeep Jain emphasized that under Articles 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution, an adult possesses the autonomy to choose their faith and partner. The high court concluded that there was no legal basis to restrain Mr. Malik, granting him the freedom to reside wherever he chooses [2].

Police Action and the Digital Narrative

While the judicial ruling focused on individual rights, a separate legal conflict emerged regarding how the proceedings were reported online. On September 16, 2026, the Shamli Police registered an FIR against six individuals, including Karishma Aziz and Nikhat Ali, for allegedly spreading false information on social media [1].

The police allege that these users falsely claimed the high court had reprimanded law enforcement during the hearing. The charges were filed under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to information likely to provoke enmity between different religious or regional groups [1].

Comparison: Judicial Ruling vs. Police FIR

Aspect	Judicial Ruling (High Court)	Police Action (Shamli Police)
Core Focus	Individual liberty and religious choice	Public order and digital misinformation
Legal Basis	Articles 21 & 25 of the Constitution	Section 353(2) of the BNS
Outcome	Ayush Malik set at liberty	FIR filed against six social media users