Global Human Rights Defence

Lahore High Court on Forced Conversion of a Minor and International Human Rights Law

(Abdullah Mohsin)


In a recent judgment titled “Nasira v. Judicial Magistrate and 5 others,” the Lahore High Court Lahore (‘Court’) ruled on a case pertaining to the alleged forced conversion of a 14-year-old Hindu girl (namely: Pumy Muskan) to Islam1 It was ruled that since Pumy Muskan is a minor, she lacks legal capacity to change religion on her own2 The Court went on, stating: “However, the question of faith being a matter of heart and one’s conviction, no Court can declare her conversion invalid or void. It can only refuse to recognize or give effect to it for certain legal purposes.”3 In addition, the Court handed over the custody of Muskan to her mother (‘Petitioner’).4 The Court states “The Petitioner being the lawful guardian of Pumy Muskan is entitled to her custody. There is no reason to deprive her of that right.”5

This article has three parts: the first part will state the Court’s reasoning in relation to the ruling that Pumy Muskan “…lacks legal capacity to change religion on her own”; the second part will analyze the applicable provisions of international human rights law (‘IHRL’) and see whether the Court’s reasoning is consistent with the applicable IHRL; and, the third part will assess the general legal soundness of Court’s reasoning in relation to the “lack of legal capacity to change religion for a minor.”  

Court’s reasoning

The Court framed the question as “Whether Pumy Muskan, who is admittedly a 14-year-old minor, could change her religion without consent of her parents?” Initially, the Court dwells upon the “age of discernment”6 for the purpose of conversion to another religion.7 Upon perusal of writing of various Islamic scholars and jurisprudence of national and foreign courts, the Court accepted that under Islamic Law, puberty is associated with completion of the 15th-year of age, unless there is evidence to the contrary.8

The Court ventured upon consideration of “majority” under Pakistani law. It accepted that “In Pakistan there is no uniform standard definition of age of majority.” 9 In addition, the Court mentions section 3 of the Majority Act 1875 (‘Majority Act’).10 This Act was promulgated “…to amend the Law respecting the age of majority.”11 Accordingly, section 3 defines the “age of majority” for persons domiciled in Pakistan to be 18 years. However, when the “Court of Wards” presumes superintendence of a minor’s property before the age of 18, the minor shall attain his majority when he reaches 21 years of age.12  Yet, section 3 is subject to section 2 of the Majority Act, which excludes application of the Act in matters of “the capacity of any person to act in the following matters (namely), marriage, dower, divorce and adoption”; “the religion or religious rites and usages of any class of citizens of Pakistan;…”13 Hence, the ‘18-years’ age of majority, as defined in section 3, is not applicable in issues pertaining to ‘marriage’. 

Moreover, the Court considered “whether the age of majority for the purpose of conversion would be determined with reference to the personal law to which the intending convert is subject or the faith that he wants to embrace.” The Court argued that “Islamic jurists and even in some cases our Courts have held that where a person intends to become a Muslim the governing law for determination of the age of majority would be Islamic Law.”14 Regardless, Pumy Muskan is considered a minor under both (Hindu and Islamic) laws. Because of this, the Court ruled that “Pumy Muskan being a minor lacked legal capacity to abjure her religion without the consent of her parents or guardian.” It further ruled that “a person’s religious belief is not a tangible thing and cannot be seen or touched…However, it may refuse to recognize or give effect to it for certain legal purposes.”

International Human Rights Law and conversion of a minor

For the purpose of the aforementioned subject, Article 18 of the 1966 International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’)15 is relevant. Article 18 recognizes everyone’s “freedom of thought, conscious and religion”. It states:

  1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
    This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
  2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.” (emphasis added).16
In addition, paragraph 4 of Article 18 is particularly relevant for the purpose of the present Case. It holds that: “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.” (emphasis added) Similar provisions are also included in Article 12 of the ‘American Convention on Human Rights’ (‘ACHR’)17. Article 12(4) of the American Convention recognizes the right of the parents and guardians to provide for the religious and moral education of their children or wards that is in accord with their own conviction. However, it is apparent that these various human rights instruments “…do not expressly provide a minimum age for religious conversion.”18 In addition, the aforementioned Article 18 (ICCPR) and Article 12 (ACHR) merely deal with the right of parents/legal guardians in relation to the moral and religious education of their children. It is not clear whether a minor has a ‘right’ to convert to a different religion.  Moreover, Article 5 of the UN General Assembly (‘UNGA’) resolution19 on “Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief” also recognizes: i) the right of parents/legal guardians to organize the family life in accordance with their religion or belief; and ii) the right of every child to have access to education in the matter of religion in accordance with the wishes of his parents/legal guardians, and shall not be compelled to receive teaching on religion or belief against the wishes of his parents or legal guardians.20  This is particularly relevant in situations where a minor is forced to convert to another religion without the consent of her parents. For instance, in the Pumy Muskan’s case, her parents had the right, in light of the UNGA resolution, to educate their daughter. Further, in addition to the aforementioned provisions, Articles 2, 14 and 30 of the ‘1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child’ (‘CRC’) were deemed relevant by the Lahore High Court for the purpose of assessing the rights of a minor in relation to religious conversion. These articles require state parties, including Pakistan, to respect the rights set out in the Convention for each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination.21 It also requires the state parties to respect the right of the child to “freedom of thought, conscious and religion”.22 In addition, it recognizes the rights and duties of the parents/legal guardians to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.23 Furthermore, a child belonging to a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right to profess and practice his or her own religion.24 It is apparent from these IHRL provisions that IHRL recognizes a minor’s “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”25. This may lead one to argue that a minor has the freedom to convert to another belief system. However, such freedom is, seemingly, subject to the parents/legal guardians’ right to provide religious and moral education to her children in accordance with his or her own conviction.26 Regardless, forcing a minor to keep a certain belief system or to convert to another is clear violation of the minor’s “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” (Article 18 (2), ICCPR; Article 14, CRC).   It is pertinent to mention that when a state ratifies27 an international treaty (or convention), it is legally bound by it. Hence, Pakistan, as a ratifying state of ICCPR and the CRC, is legally bound to enforce both Conventions.  In this regard, the Lahore High Court’s judgment is consistent with the IHRL to the extent that it forbids forced conversions and recognizes the paramount right of parents/legal guardians when it comes to the religious affairs of a minor. However, nothing in the IHRL absolutely bars a minor from changing his or her own religion, despite the ‘religious and moral’ education provided by her parents/legal guardian.


It is important to note that international human rights law recognizes minors’ “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”, subject to parents/legal guardian’s right to provide moral and religious education to her children in accordance with her own convictions. However, the latter ‘right’ of parents/legal guardians does not necessarily imply that a minor absolutely lacks legal capacity to change her own religion.  In other words, a minor might still have the freedom to convert to another religion despite the “moral and religious education” provided by her parents/legal guardians.28

Moreover, the reasoning that the Court seems to rely upon is that since the minor is not at the ‘age of discernment’ in order to make an informed decision regarding religion, they lack the legal capacity to do so without the consent of parents/legal guardian. However, the legal basis for such ‘lack of legal capacity’ is not clear from the Court’s judgment. Another argument that can be used for the purpose of a ‘minor’s conversion’ is that any forced conversion to another religion is illegal. This entails that the element of ‘force’ renders the ‘conversion’ illegal. 29

 In addition, instead of creating an absolute bar against the conversion of minors, it might be possible to define a presumption against minor’s conversion unless proven otherwise, for example: a minor can be presumed to not to have converted unless it is proven that the conversion actually occurred. Yet, it is understandable that in light of the evidential difficulties of proving a ‘forced conversion’, the Court has chosen a ‘just’ outcome instead of one that is legally sound.   


American Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San Jose”, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969.

See link:

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

See link: 

Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (CRC), 1577 UNTS 3.

See link:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR), 999 UNTS 171.

See link:

Majority Act, 1875 (Act XI of 1875).

See link:,%201875.pdf

Nasira v. Judicial Magistrate and 5 others, PLD 2020 489.

See link:

Taylor, M. Paul (2020) ‘A Commentary on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ Cambridge University Press.

UN General Assembly, Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, 25 November 1981, UN Doc. A/RES/36/55.

See link:


  1.  Nasira v. Judicial Magistrate and 5 others, PLD 2020 489,  para 2. See link:
  2.  Ibid, para 62.
  3. Ibid
  4. Ibid
  5. Ibid
  6.  Presumably, the term “Age of Discernment” is used to indicate the ‘age’ in which a person is mentally capable to make an informed and rational decision. 

  7.  (Nasira, 2020) see above n.1, para.31.
  8.  Ibid, paras.28-34.

  9.  Ibid,para.37.
  10.  Ibid, para 37; The Majority Act, 1875 (XI of 1875)(Pakistan). See link:,%201875.pdf
  11.  Preamble of the Majority Act. See above n.10.
  12.  Section 3, Ibid.

  13.  Section 2(a) (b), Ibid.

  14.  (Nasira, 2020) see above n.1, para.39.

  15.  ICCPR is an international multilateral treaty that universally recognizes ‘human rights’ of individuals within the jurisdiction of ‘State-Parties’ to the Treaty. See: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR), 999 UNTS 171.

  16.  Also see the commentary on Article 18 (4) by: Taylor, M. Paul (2020) ‘A Commentary on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ Cambridge University Press, p.530.
  17. ACHR is an international treaty which aims “…to consolidate…within the framework of democratic institutions,
    a system of personal liberty and social justice based on respect for the essential rights of man;”. See: American Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San Jose”, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969.

  18.  (Nasira, 2020) see above n.1, para. 35.
  19.  Unlike a ‘treaty’, which is legally binding upon states parties to it, the ‘UN GA Resolution’ is not legally binding.

  20.  UN General Assembly, Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, 25 November 1981, UN Doc. A/RES/36/55. See link:
  21.  Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (CRC), 1577 UNTS 3, Art 2. See link:
  22.  Ibid, Art 14.
  23.  Ibid.
  24.  CRC, see above n.21, Article 30.
  25.  CRC, see above n.21, Article 14.
  26.  ICCPR, see above, n.15, Article 18 (4).
  27.  “Ratification” is a process through which a state-party to a treaty incorporates that particular treaty into domestic law through domestic legislation.

  28.  This is reinforced by Article 14 (1) of the CRC which bind State Parties to “…respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscious and religion”. Under Article 14 (2), the parents/legal guardians merely have the right “…to provide directions to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the
    evolving capacities of the child.” See above n.21.

  29.  Under Article 20 (Freedom to profess religion and manage religious institutions), Constitution of Pakistan 1973; and Article 18, ICCPR. See n.15 for ICCPR, and  See Link for Constitution of Pakistan:


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.


Coordinator - Tibet Team

Mandakini graduated with honours from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. Her team analyses the human rights violations faced by Tibetans through a legal lens.

Kenza Mena
Team Coordinator -China

Kenza Mena has expertise in international criminal law since she is currently pursuing a last-year Master’s degree in International Criminal Justice at Paris II Panthéon-Assas and obtained with honors cum laude an LLM in International and Transnational Criminal Law from the University of Amsterdam. She also holds a Bachelor’s degree in French and Anglo-American law. 

Since September 2021, she has been the coordinator of Team China at GHRD, a country where violations of human rights, even international crimes, are frequently perpetrated by representatives of the State. Within Team China, awareness is also raised on discrimination that Chinese women and minorities in the country and, more generally, Chinese people around the world are facing.

Kenza believes that the primary key step to tackle atrocities perpetrated around the world is advocacy and promotion of human rights.

Aimilina Sarafi
Pakistan Coordinator

Aimilina Sarafi holds a Bachelor’s degree cum laude in International Relations and Organisations from Leiden University and is currently pursuing a Double Legal Master’s degree (LLM) in Public International Law and International Criminal Law at the University of Amsterdam.
She is an active advocate for the human rights of all peoples in her community and is passionate about creating a better world for future generations. Aimilina is the coordinator for the GHRD team of Pakistan, in which human rights violations of minority communities in Pakistan are investigated and legally evaluated based on international human rights legal standards.
Her team is working on raising awareness on the plight of minority communities such as women, children, religious and ethnic minorities within Pakistan.

Lukas Mitidieri
Coordinator & Head Researcher- Bangladesh

Lucas Mitidieri is currently pursuing his bachelor’s degree in International Relations at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). As the GHRD Bangladesh Team Coordinator, he advocates for human rights and monitors violations across all minorities and marginalized groups in Bangladesh. Lucas believes that the fight for International Human Rights is the key to a world with better social justice and greater equality.

Nicole Hutchinson
Editorial Team Lead

Nicole has an MSc in International Development Studies with a focus on migration. She is passionate about promoting human rights and fighting poverty through advocacy and empowering human choice. Nicole believes that even the simplest social justice efforts, when properly nurtured, can bring about radical and positive change worldwide.

Gabriela Johannen
Coordinator & Head Researcher – India

Gabriela Johannen is a lawyer admitted to the German bar and holds extensive knowledge in the fields of human rights, refugee law, and international law. After working for various courts and law firms in her home country, she decided to obtain an LL.M. degree from Utrecht University where she studied Public International Law with a special focus on Human Rights. Additionally, while working as a pro-bono legal advisor for refugees, she expanded her knowledge in the fields of refugee law and migration.

Gabriela is the coordinator and head researcher for GHRD India, a country, she has had a personal connection with since childhood. Her primary focus is to raise awareness for the severe human rights violations against minorities and marginalized groups that continue to occur on a daily basis in India. By emphasizing the happenings and educating the general public, she hopes to create a better world for future generations.

João Victor
Coordinator & Head Researcher – International Justice

João Victor is a young Brazilian lawyer who leads our team of International Justice and Human Rights. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Law from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and possesses over 5 years of experience in dealing with Human Rights and International Law issues both in Brazil and internationally, including the protection of refugees’ rights and the strengthening of accountability measures against torture crimes.

João has an extensive research engagement with subjects related to International Justice in general, and more specifically with the study of the jurisprudence of Human Rights Courts regarding the rise of populist and anti-terrorist measures taken by national governments. He is also interested in the different impacts that new technologies may provoke on the maintenance of Human Rights online, and how enforcing the due diligence rules among private technology companies might secure these rights against gross Human Rights violations.

Célinne Bodinger
Environment and Human Rights Coordinator

As the Environment and Human Rights Coordinator, Célinne is passionate about the health of our planet and every life on it.

Angela Roncetti
Team Coordinator and Head Researcher- South America

Angela holds a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) from Vitória Law School (FDV) in Brazil. Her research combines more than five years of experience conducting debates and studies on the rights of homeless people, the elderly, children, and refugees. Besides that, she also volunteers in a social project called Sou Diferente (I am Different in English), where she coordinates and takes part in actions aimed at the assistance and the emancipation of vulnerable groups in the cities of the metropolitan area of Espírito Santo state (Brazil).

Lina Borchardt
Team Head (Promotions)

She is currently heading the Promotions Team and University Chapter of Global Human Rights Defence. Her background is the one of European and International Law, which I am studying in The Hague. She has previously gained experience at Women´s Rights organizations in Germany, the Netherlands and Turkey over the past years.
She has been working for Global Human Rights Defence in the Netherlands since 2020. Her focus now is concentrated on the Human Rights and Minorities Film Festival and the cooperation of GHRD with students across the country.

Pedro Ivo Oliveira
Team Coordinator and Researcher

Pedro holds an extensive background in Human Rights, especially in Global Health, LGBTQ+ issues, and HIV and AIDS. He is currently finishing his Bachelor’s Degree in International Relations and Affairs at the Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Moreover, he successfully attended the Bilingual Summer School in Human Rights Education promoted by the Federal University of Minas Gerais and the Association of Universities of the Montevideo Group. Besides, Pedro Ivo has a diversified professional background, collecting experiences in many NGOs and projects.

With outstanding leadership abilities, in 2021, Pedro Ivo was the Secretary-General of the 22nd edition of the biggest UN Model in Latin America: the MINIONU. Fluent in Portuguese, English, and Spanish, Pedro Ivo is the Team Coordinator and Head Researcher of the Team Africa at Global Human Rights Defence. Hence, his focus is to empower his team from many parts of the world about the Human Rights Situation in the African continent, meanwhile having a humanized approach.

Alessandro Cosmo
GHRD Youth Ambassador
(European Union)

Alessandro Cosmo obtained his B.A. with Honors from Leiden University College where he studied International Law with a minor in Social and Business Entrepreneurship. He is currently pursuing an LL.M. in Public International Law at Utrecht University with a specialization in Conflict and Security. 
As GHRD’s E.U. Youth Ambassador, Alessandro’s two main focuses are to broaden the Defence’s reach within E.U. institutions and political parties, as well as mediate relations between human rights organizations abroad seeking European funding. 
Alessandro believes that human rights advocacy requires grass-roots initiatives where victims’ voices are amplified and not paraphrased or spoken for. He will therefore act on this agenda when representing Global Human Rights Defence domestically and abroad

Veronica Delgado
Team Coordinator and Researcher- Japan, Sri Lanka & Tibet

Veronica is a Colombian lawyer who leads our team of Japan, Sri Lanka and Tibet. She holds a master’s degree in Public International Law from Utrecht University. She has experience in Colombian law firms. Here she represented clients before constitutional courts. She also outlined legal concepts to state entities such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ombudsman’s Office on international law issues.

Veronica has an extensive research background with subjects related to public international law. She worked as an assistant researcher for more than two years for the Externado University of Colombia. Here she undertook in-depth research on constitutional, business, and human rights law issues. She was involved with consultancy services with the Colombian Army regarding transitional justice. 

Wiktoria Walczyk
Coordinator & Head Researcher (Nepal & Indonesia)

Wiktoria Walczyk has joined GHRD in June 2020 as a legal intern. She is currently coordinator and head researcher of Team Nepal and Indonesia. She has an extensive legal knowledge concerning international human rights and is passionate about children’s and minorities’ rights. Wiktoria has obtained her LL.B. in International & European Law and she specialised in Public International Law & Human Rights at The Hague University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. Moreover, she is pursuing her LL.M. in International & European Law and focusing on Modern Human Rights Law specialisation at the University of Wroclaw in Poland. In order to gain an essential legal experience, Wiktoria has also joined Credit Suisse’s 2021 General Counsel Graduate First Program where she is conducting her legal training and discovering the banking world. She would like to make a significant impact when it comes to the protection of fundamental human rights around the world, especially with regard to child labour. 

Fairuz Sewbaks
Coordinator and Head Researcher

Fairuz Sewbaks holds extensive legal knowledge regarding international human rights, with a specific focus on human rights dealings taking place in continental Africa. She holds a bachelor’s degree from The Hague University in public international law and international human rights and successfully followed advanced human rights courses at the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria. She furthermore participated in the Istanbul Summer School where she was educated about the role of epidemics and pandemics in light of human rights.


Fairuz is the coordinator and head researcher for GHRD Africa. Her primary focus is to establish and coordinate long-term research projects regarding the differentiating human rights dealings of vulnerable and marginalized groups in continental Africa, as well as conducting individual research projects.

Priya Lachmansingh
Coordinator and Head Researcher, Political Advisor
(Asia & America)

Priya Lachmansingh is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree in International & European
Law at the Hague University of Applied Science.
As GHRD’s Asia & America human rights coordinator and GHRD Political Advisor, Priya’s
prominent focus is to highlight human rights violations targeted against minority and
marginalized groups in Asia and America and to broaden GHRD reach within Dutch political
parties and as well seek domestic funding.

Jasmann Chatwal
Team Coordinator & Head Coordinator: North America

Jasmann is a political science student at Leiden University who joined GHRD in May 2021 as an intern in team Pakistan. Now, she is the team coordinator for North America and is responsible for coordinating the documentation of human rights violations in USA, Canada, and America.