India’s Supreme Court strongly criticized the Allahabad High Court on Monday for failing to grant bail in a case involving charges of forced religious conversion.

The Supreme Court questioned the High Court’s reluctance to exercise its discretion in granting bail to Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi, who was accused of unlawfully converting a mentally challenged minor to Islam. The court stated that the decision created an impression of bias and ignored well-established legal principles.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan stated that there was no valid reason for the High Court to deny bail in this case. The judges emphasized that while trial courts often hesitate to grant bail, higher courts are expected to exercise their discretion judicially. They stressed that the seriousness of an alleged offense should not override the fundamental principles of bail, which must be granted unless compelling reasons justify its denial.

The court reiterated the well-established legal principle in India that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception,” emphasizing that pre-trial detention should not be the norm unless there are significant reasons to deny bail. The court further remarked that bail decisions should be based strictly on legal merits, not personal or political considerations regarding religious conversions.

Kazmi, a religious cleric at an Islamic school, was arrested in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, under a state anti-conversion law, The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. He was also charged under provisions of the Indian Penal Code related to causing public disturbance and issuing threats. Prosecutors allege that he unlawfully detained the minor and coerced him into changing his religion. However, his defense argued that Kazmi sheltered the minor out of compassion after his family abandoned him. The Supreme Court, after reviewing this case, found no substantial reason for his continued detention and granted him bail.

While granting bail, the Supreme Court instructed the High Court to impose appropriate conditions ensuring Kazmi’s presence at trial. It also clarified that its observations should not influence the final verdict and directed the trial court to proceed with the case expeditiously.