Allahabad High Court Orders Fresh Review After Criticising ADM Under UP Conversion Law Case

The Allahabad High Court has strongly reprimanded an Additional District Magistrate (ADM) in Prayagraj for repeatedly ordering police inquiries under Uttar Pradesh’s anti-conversion law in a case involving a Muslim man who later embraced Hinduism. The court found that the ADM acted beyond jurisdiction by relying on external criminal allegations rather than strictly examining statutory requirements under the law.

The case involves Anil Pandit, formerly known as Mohammad Ahashan, an Assistant Professor at an institute under the University of Allahabad. According to court records, Pandit submitted a declaration on January 12, 2022, under Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, expressing his intent to convert to Hinduism. The conversion process was formally notified and later carried out at an Arya Samaj Temple on March 14, 2022, following procedural requirements.

However, the ADM rejected his conversion certificate application on August 9, 2024, despite two earlier police inquiries confirming that the conversion was voluntary and free from coercion. The rejection came after a later police report referenced a criminal case filed by the petitioner’s wife’s father and highlighted a ₹1 lakh financial transaction between the couple in 2021, which the ADM treated as suspicious.

Also Read: Amit Shah To Visit Ladakh For Development Review And Buddha Purnima Events

The High Court noted that the ADM continued to seek additional police reports even though the statute required only a limited inquiry. The bench observed that the subsequent criminal FIR had no direct relevance to the legality of the religious conversion process and that repeated inquiries amounted to overreach of administrative authority.

During proceedings, the court also interacted with the petitioner and his wife, who stated that their marriage was conducted voluntarily under Hindu rites. The wife clarified that the financial transaction was assistance during a medical emergency, not evidence of coercion. The court further emphasized that a charge-sheet does not establish guilt and cannot be used to draw adverse conclusions at the administrative stage.

Ultimately, the court stayed the ADM’s rejection order and directed that a fresh decision be taken after properly considering earlier inquiry reports and statutory provisions. It also allowed the couple to continue their married life without interference and scheduled the next hearing for May 27, 2026.

Also Read: SC Nine-Judge Bench Restricts Arguments To Articles 25 And 26 In Sabarimala Review