For years, concerns surrounding “Love Jihad”, grooming and targeting of vulnerable Hindu girls in interfaith relationships have remained at the centre of India’s social and political discourse. Back-to-back cases emerging from different parts of the country have revealed recurring patterns involving emotional manipulation, isolation from family, concealment, religious pressure, sudden elopements, conversion attempts and exploitation of young Hindu girls, many of whom were minors at the time they entered such relationships.
Notably, these are not isolated incidents, but repeated patterns that raise serious concerns about the vulnerability of underage Hindu girls who may not fully understand the consequences of their actions or the situations they are drawn into.
It is in this backdrop that the recent judgment of the Delhi High Court acquitting Mohammad Qasim in the kidnapping and rape case of a Hindu girl has reignited a national debate. The verdict has raised difficult questions about how courts interpret consent, minority and interfaith relationships involving underage girls.
In Mohd. Quasim v. State (NCT of Delhi), Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav acquitted Mohammad Qasim nearly 22 years after he was convicted by a trial court in 2008 for kidnapping and raping a Hindu girl who, according to the ossification test itself, could have been between 14 and 16 years old at the time.
The High Court concluded that the girl had willingly accompanied Qasim, travelled with him from Delhi to West Bengal, married him under the Special Marriage Act and later changed her version because of “social or parental pressure.”
But the verdict has triggered outrage and disbelief in many quarters. Many are asking whether a girl who may have been just 14 or 15 years old could truly understand the consequences of leaving home with an adult man. The two travelled across states and later entered into marriage. They argue that this is exactly why the law treats minors differently from adults. They say concerns around grooming and emotional influence cannot simply be ignored because the girl travelled “willingly.”
The 2004 case that ended in acquittal after 22 years
The case dates back to May 2004, when the Hindu girl disappeared from her home in Delhi. Her father approached the police and alleged that Mohammad Qasim had kidnapped his daughter. Following the complaint, police registered an FIR under IPC Sections 363 (kidnapping a minor) and 366 (kidnapping or inducing a woman to compel her marriage).
According to court records, the two travelled to West Bengal, Qasim’s native place, and eventually married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Years later, in 2008, a trial court convicted Qasim of kidnapping and rape. The High Court has now overturned that conviction after nearly 17 years of pending appeal proceedings.
The acquittal has now reopened debate not only around the legal reasoning adopted by the court, but also around how India’s institutions interpret cases involving minors, interfaith relationships and allegations of grooming.
“Her silence indicates she was an ally”: Court’s observations
One of the most controversial parts of the judgment is the reasoning repeatedly adopted by the court regarding the girl’s conduct during the journey.
Justice Yadav observed that the prosecutrix travelled with Qasim through buses, railway stations and trains covering more than 1,500 kilometres and yet did not raise alarm.
The judgment states, “The prosecutrix had numerous opportunities to draw the attention of not only the public persons but the Government Authorities as well, had she been forcefully taken by the Appellant or was enticed by him. She had travelled for more than 1500 kms in public transport right from the TSR to a bus, to a train to reach to the native village of the Appellant in West Bengal. It is nearly impossible to believe that the prosecutrix did not have even a single opportunity to raise alarm and attract the attention of the public police or the Government officials at the bus station, railway station or even during the travel.”
The court further observed, “Her silence in such circumstances only indicates that she was an ally of the Appellant and accompanied him by her own choice, will and desire.”
But those opposing the verdict argue that this interpretation fundamentally ignores the reality of grooming and emotional manipulation. They argue that minors often do not realise they are being exploited. Emotional dependency and attachment can prevent them from resisting or seeking help. That is precisely why the law recognises minors as incapable of giving fully informed consent in many situations.
For many, the central issue, therefore, is not whether the girl travelled willingly but whether an underage Hindu girl could truly understand the consequences of leaving home with an adult man.
Court’s “Deeply divided society” remark sparks debate
The judgment has also sparked debate because of the broad sociological observations made by the court regarding interfaith relationships.
In the opening paragraph itself, Justice Yadav remarked, “Fragmented, stratified and deeply divided Indian society across all the classes left no room practically for the young lovers to choose their partners. If the prescribed barriers are to be breach then, the consequences have been so severe that they have had to pay with their lives at times.”
The court further observed, “In such a deeply divided society, which has not only divided the lives, religion, caste, region or language but even inter-se divisions have been found within a particular social group. In such circumstances, an inter-religious alliance was no less than a sin.”
These observations have become one of the most widely discussed aspects of the verdict. The judgment has sparked debate over how courts approach cases involving potentially underage girls in interfaith relationships and whether greater emphasis should be placed on questions of minority, protection and vulnerability.
For many readers, the verdict may appear to frame the case largely through the lens of two young people facing social barriers and resistance to an interfaith relationship, while others believe the central issue remains the age of the girl and the circumstances in which she left her family.
Court says girl changed her version
The court also stated that the prosecutrix had initially aligned herself with Qasim but later changed her version.
Justice Yadav observed, “One of the partners, that is the prosecutrix herein, who had taken an initial stand of aligning with the Appellant in every aspect from voluntarily accompanying him, to marrying him, having the marriage registered and living with him for about two months, turned tables and shifted the entire blame on the Appellant when she came to depose before the Court.”
The Court also said her conduct suggested that her testimony before the trial court “was under some sort of social or parental pressure and certain aspects are there which could not be explained by her during cross-examination.”
However, this conclusion has also generated strong reactions. Notably, when a minor daughter disappears with an adult man, concern from parents cannot automatically be reduced to regressive social pressure. Families, many argue, are naturally expected to intervene, especially when the girl is underage.
The age and the ossification test
The issue of the girl’s age remains at the centre of the controversy.
The ossification test assessed her age between 14 and 16 years. However, the High Court applied the accepted medical margin of error of plus or minus two years and concluded that her age could potentially extend to 18 years.
The judgment states, “The result of the ossification test Ex. PW-11/A clearly reflects that the age of the prosecutrix was between 14 to 16 years old at the relevant time and given the concept of margin of error which provides that it could be plus(+) minus(-) 02 years as such, the age of the prosecutrix could be in the range of 12 to 18.”
The court eventually gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and observed, “So far as, the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, with the margin of error it can be taken as 18 years i.e. the age when a female can marry and can also have consensual relationship with anyone of her choice.”
This aspect of the reasoning has also drawn significant attention. The judgment interpreted the medical evidence by applying the accepted margin of error in the ossification test and eventually extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, even though the age assessment itself placed the girl between 14 and 16 years at the relevant time.
Marriage, minor consent and the marital rape exception
The High Court also referred to the marital rape exception existing under Section 375 IPC at that time.
Justice Yadav observed, “Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC comes into play which clarifies that sexual intercourse or sexual act by a man with his own wife and the wife being not under 15 years of age is not an offence of rape.”
This portion of the judgment has also attracted significant attention because of the court’s reliance on the marital rape exception that existed in law at the relevant time in 2004, when sexual intercourse with one’s wife above 15 years of age did not amount to rape under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.
The court also relied upon letters allegedly written by the prosecutrix, her refusal to undergo internal medical examination and her conduct during the journey while concluding that she had willingly accompanied Mohammad Qasim.
A verdict that reopens questions beyond courtroom
Legally, the case may have concluded with an acquittal. Socially, however, the debate appears far from over.
The Delhi High Court verdict has now become part of the larger national debate surrounding rising cases of “Love Jihad”, grooming and interfaith relationships involving Hindu girls, particularly minors. Over the years, several such cases emerging from different parts of the country have revealed recurring patterns involving emotional influence, sudden elopements, separation from families, allegations of coercion, religious pressure and disputes over consent and age.
The acquittal of Mohammad Qasim has therefore become much more than a criminal appeal decided after two decades. It has reopened wider questions around consent, minority, grooming, parental rights and the interpretation of interfaith relationships involving potentially underage girls.
The case has also intensified discussion around how such relationships should be viewed when the girl involved is allegedly below 18 years of age. The judgment repeatedly interpreted the relationship through the lens of voluntary companionship and social resistance to interfaith unions, while the broader public debate surrounding such cases continues to focus on vulnerability, emotional influence and protection of minors.
The judgment has also drawn attention because of the language used by the court while describing the relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix. Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav repeatedly referred to the two as “young lovers” and spoke at length about the barriers faced by interfaith couples in Indian society.
The observations came at a time when several cases across the country involving Hindu girls in interfaith relationships have led to allegations of grooming, coercion, religious pressure, disappearance, violence and even deaths. In many such cases, families have alleged that young girls were emotionally manipulated or isolated before being taken away from their homes.
Read the court order here.
