Bareilly Court Sentences Man to Life for "Love Jihad," Despite Woman’s Changed Testimony

Mohd Aalim Ahmad, a 25-year-old Muslim, was sentenced to life in jail by a fast-track court in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, after the judge deemed his case to be one of "love jihad." The verdict was met with controversy. Ahmad is accused of having married a 22-year-old lady fraudulently; however, the woman later stated that Ahmad had misled her about his identity and intentions. This case has garnered national attention. The judge maintained the first charges despite her later retracting the claim, citing the wider harm posed by "love jihad" and even raising the possibility that similar instances were funded by foreign entities.

On September 30, 2024, the court issued its decision following a trial that had several unexpected turns, especially in relation to the woman's shifting testimony. When they first met in 2022, she had accused Ahmad of pretending to be "Anand Kumar." In March 2022, they were wed in a temple; however, she later found out who he really was and accused him of rape, criminal intimidation, and hurting people. In connection with the case, Ahmad's father, Mohd Sabir, was also given a two-year prison sentence for criminal intimidation.

Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar of Additional District and Sessions Court gave a thorough explanation of his rationale in his 42-page ruling, defining "love jihad" as the "deceptive conversion of non-Muslim women to Islam through fraudulent marriages." According to the judge, radical forces within a religious group are behind this alleged marriage scam, which is part of a larger, darker scheme to change demographics and spark international tensions. Additionally, he claimed that these conversions required "significant financial resources," implying that foreign funding was involved. This accusation has sparked contentious discussions around the nation.

In his ruling, Judge Diwakar claimed that the main goal of "love jihad" is to change demographics and incite conflict between nations. He continued by saying that these kinds of unions are frequently associated with "radical factions" and require substantial financial support—which, in this instance, may come from outside sources. Critics have taken issue with this statement, claiming that the idea of "love jihad" has been exploited in India to support divisive politics and sectarian narratives.

When the woman renounced her prior claims in court on September 19, 2024, the case took an unexpected turn. In her testimony, she said that right-wing organisations that had influenced her parents had put pressure on her to make the first remark. She said that she was forced into bringing up Ahmad's accusations. Judge Diwakar rejected her revised testimony despite this retraction, noting suspicions that she might have been coerced or under undue influence when making the change.

The court also cited what he considered to be indications of the woman's financial dominance. He pointed out that she was unemployed, owned an expensive Android phone, and lived apart from her parents in a leased home—elements that, in the judge's opinion, indicated substantial finances were involved in the case. He came to the conclusion that this demonstrated the purported foreign funding for the so-called "love jihad" plot, a claim that has drawn heavy criticism from civil society organisations and other legal professionals.

Concerns regarding the legal meaning of "love jihad" and its potential to inflame tensions across communities have been voiced by the verdict's detractors. Experts in law argue that the judge's use of the contentious phrase could create a risky precedent for instances involving interfaith weddings in the future. Furthermore, the claim of foreign involvement—which lacks supporting documentation—has sparked new discussions about the politicisation of the legal system.

An anonymous human rights activist stated, "This verdict is deeply problematic as it perpetuates a narrative that targets interfaith marriages and stigmatises religious communities." "Despite the woman's recantation of her testimony, the judge disregarded it, basing her decision on conjecture rather than evidence."

Religious and human rights organisations have also responded forcefully to the ruling, voicing concerns about its wider ramifications for India's legal system and interfaith relations. The case demonstrates the increasing impact of political narratives on court rulings, prompting calls for more examination of the use of such divisive terminology in legal proceedings.

The issue is anticipated to continue to be a hot topic in the current national discussion about how politics, religion, and the law mix in India as it makes its way through the appeals process.

--