Supreme Court Grants Bail In Inter-Faith Marriage Case Approved By Families

The Supreme Court has, in a landmark judgment that upholds personal liberty and the sanctity of consensual relationships, granted bail to a man who had been arrested under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act 2018, after he had entered into an inter-faith marriage. The apex court observed that the marriage was conducted with the consent of both families and that the State cannot stand objection to the couple's decision to live together.

Background of the Case

Aman Siddiqui, also known as Aman Chaudhary, also known as Raja, was detained by Uttarakhand police on charges of illegal religious conversion in the case of Aman Siddiqui alias Aman Chaudhary alias Raja v. State of Uttarakhand. The allegations came in the backdrop of his marriage to a woman of a different religion. Several people and organizations contended that the marriage was one in which forced conversion had taken place, which led them to invoke the provisions of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 (UFRA).

An FIR was registered against the appellant for: 

• Under Section 3 of UFRA: In accordance with Section 3 of the UFRA, which forbids religious conversion by coercion, deception, undue influence, etc.
• Under Section 5 of UFRA: Punishment is provided for violation of Section 3 and is from imprisonment for one year to five years. 

Further, charges were also framed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, namely:

• Section 318(4): It relates to the offence of cheating punishable by imprisonment that may extend up to seven years with a fine.
• Section 319: It has to do with cheating by impersonation, which is punished by up to five years in prison, a fine, or both. 

The appellant was first taken into custody and had remained in jail for over six months before the matter reached the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court’s Observations

Justices B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma bench heard the appellant's bail plea. The Court was notably attentive to the fact that the marriage was: 

• Consensual, and 
• Accepted by both the appellant’s family as well as the woman’s family. 

The State had opposed bail on the grounds that a criminal investigation had been initiated and was under way in respect of the alleged conversion. However, the Court looked at this objection as being unreasonable, especially keeping in mind the fact that the parties were living peacefully together and supported by their families.

Further, the Court ruled that external pressure brought from individuals or organizations after the marriage could not be a valid ground to keep denying the liberty of the appellant. The Court stressed that where consenting adults made free choices in matters of marriage, such rights should be respected, barring any instances involving coercion or illegal inducement.  

Setting Aside the High Court’s Order

Before, the Uttarakhand High Court had refused bail to the appellant, noting the existence of serious allegations under anti-conversion laws. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this approach and set aside the impugned order, highlighting the absence of compelling reasons to keep the appellant in custody any longer.

Significance of the Ruling

• This ruling was an important reiteration of-the Supreme Court in protection of individual liberties, especially in inter-faith marriages that are subject to public scrutiny and/or legal challenges in various States.
• The Court further clarified that anti-conversion laws-theoretically aimed at preventing forcible conversions-should not be misused to interfere in genuine and willing precedents of relationships. When adults marry by consent and with the approval of their respective families, no state interference is warranted.

Legal Context

• Section 3, UFRA: Prohibits conversion by use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means. 
• Section 5, UFRA: Prescribes punishment for offences mentioned in Section 3.
• Section 318(4), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Pertains to cheating.
• Section 319, BNS: Pertains to cheating by way of impersonation.

All these provisions, the Court noted, cannot be interpreted so as to take away freedom of individual choice in personal matters. 

The Court's reasoning in Aman Siddiqui v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) signals an important precedent to protect the rights of people in inter-faith relationships, particularly when there is a risk of these rights being improperly misused. This judgment strongly rejected misuse of the law preventing some harassment and ultimately criminalization of decisions made by an individual (or individuals) and family. 

This judgment therefore confirms that the individual constitutional guarantees of personal liberty, dignity, and freedom to choose a partner notwithstanding religious differences can prevail over community or political pressures which serve only to undermine an individual's right to select and or maintain a relationship.

Sharks of Law offers a comprehensive legal solutions facility, providing an extensive collection of information on diverse areas of law in the legal field by the best professionals in this area. With this law firm, you can search and find a lawyer who can meet your legal requirements for online consultation. The attorneys at Sharks of Law have the necessary expertise across all the fields involved should you have any inquiries that require legal counsel.

Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com

Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993