The Court drew a firm line between what the law has not yet done and what it will not permit. Same-sex marriage may not be recognised, that, the Court accepted, is for the legislature; but the want of that recognition, it held, does not license a family, a relative, or anyone else to disturb, threaten or harm two adults who have chosen to live together. Interviewing the two women in person and satisfying itself that their decision was free and informed, the Court held their live-in relationship to be protected under Article 21, and directed the police to secure them against any interference.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has allowed a writ petition by a same-sex couple seeking protection for their live-in relationship, holding that two consenting adults have a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution to live together peacefully, and that neither their sexual orientation nor the opposition of their families or society can be a ground to imperil their life and liberty [Km. Farida Ansari and Another v. State of U.P. and Others].
Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary allowed the petition and issued directions for the couple’s protection.
The petition
The petitioners, both adults, approached the Court under Article 226 seeking a direction restraining the private respondents from interfering in their peaceful live-in relationship and directing the authorities to provide them protection. Their case was that they are adults, are in a same-sex live-in relationship, and that certain family members had become hostile and were threatening and harassing them, placing their lives in danger. Their counsel submitted that a consensual live-in relationship between adults is not an offence, and invoked the guarantees of equality under Article 14 and of life and personal liberty under Article 21, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalised consensual relations between adults and held that sexual orientation is an intrinsic aspect of a person’s liberty, dignity, privacy and autonomy.
The State, through the Standing Counsel, submitted that same-sex relationships lack social acceptance and that, while the right to choose a partner is protected under Article 21, legislative recognition of such a choice is not a fundamental right, adding that a traditional section of society regards marriage and family as an institution between a man and a woman.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Says LGBTQ+ Couples Can Form Families Even Without Legal Marriage
The Court’s interaction with the petitioners
Both petitioners appeared in person before the Court in compliance with an earlier order, and were identified by their counsel. On being questioned, the Court recorded, they stated in clear, firm and fearless terms that they are adults and had decided to live together of their own free will and by reason of their orientation, without any pressure, fear or undue influence, and that they wished to continue in the live-in relationship in future. They also placed a written statement on record to the same effect. On interviewing them personally, the Court found that both were adults, fully capable of understanding their own well-being, and that their decision rested on free consent.
The constitutional position
The Court anchored its conclusion in the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, extracting its summary of conclusions. Under that decision, while there is no unqualified right to marriage except as recognised by statute, and the legal recognition of a same-sex union or the conferral of a legal status upon it can only come through enacted law, queer and LGBTQ+ couples nonetheless have the right to a union or relationship under Article 21, flowing from the rights to privacy, choice and autonomy, though that does not extend to a claim of legal status for the union.
From that framework the Court drew the distinction on which the case turned: that although conferring marital status on a same-sex relationship lies within the province of the legislature, there is no legal bar on the peaceful cohabitation of two adults, and such cohabitation enjoys the full protection of the Constitution. Where two adults voluntarily choose to live together, it held, their life and liberty cannot be imperilled on the basis of their sexual identity or of social opposition:
The absence of marital recognition does not give any third party or the administrative machinery a licence to strike at the dignity and physical safety of adult citizens; the right to life and personal liberty is supreme in the constitutional scheme.
Choosing a partner of one’s own volition, the Court held, drawing on both Navtej Singh Johar and Supriyo, is an inseparable part of an individual’s privacy, autonomy and dignity, and it is the duty of the judiciary to protect constitutional morality over popular morality.
The directions
Holding the petitioners to be fully protected under Article 21, adults, educated, capable of understanding their own interest, and having decided to live together after due deliberation and without any coercion, the Court found no reason to decline protection. It allowed the petition, declared that the petitioners are at liberty to live together peacefully, and directed that their family members or any other person shall not be permitted to interfere in their living together in a live-in relationship.
Should any obstruction arise in their peaceful life, the Court directed, the petitioners may approach the concerned Commissioner of Police, SSP or SP with a certified copy of the order, and the police, after satisfying themselves that the petitioners are adults living together of their own volition, shall provide them immediate protection. The Court also granted liberty to the private respondents to file a recall application, should the documents placed on record by the petitioners be found to be fabricated or forged.
Why it matters
The judgment applies, at the level of everyday protection, the constitutional settlement that Supriyo left in place. That decision declined to read a right to same-sex marriage into existing law, holding legal recognition to be a matter for the legislature; but it affirmed, and the High Court here reiterates, that queer couples have a right under Article 21 to a relationship or union, drawn from privacy, choice and autonomy. The significance of the present ruling is that it converts that abstract right into a concrete, enforceable protection: a same-sex couple threatened by their families can obtain a court’s declaration that they may live together and a direction to the police to keep them safe.
The Court’s careful method matters as much as its conclusion. By requiring the petitioners to appear, interviewing them, and satisfying itself that they are adults acting on free and informed consent, the Court did what protection jurisprudence requires, confirming that the relationship is genuinely voluntary before extending its shield, and its liberty to the respondents to seek a recall if the documents prove fabricated guards against misuse. The result is a protection grounded in verified consent rather than assertion.
The State’s submission, that such relationships lack social acceptance and that a traditional view of marriage prevails, was noted but did not carry the day, and the reason is doctrinal: the Court’s task, as it observed on the authority of Navtej Singh Johar, is to protect constitutional morality rather than popular morality. Whatever the state of social opinion, and the recognition of same-sex marriage remains for Parliament to decide, the constitutional guarantee of life, liberty and dignity extends to all adult citizens, and it is that guarantee, not the presence or absence of social approval, that governs their right to live together in peace.
Case Title: Km. Farida Ansari and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [Writ-C No. 36224 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Date of Judgment: September 14, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Amar Nath Singh and others for the petitioners; Standing Counsel for the State.
Status: Petition allowed. Same-sex couple’s live-in relationship held protected under Article 21; police protection directed. Liberty to the private respondents to seek recall if the documents are found fabricated.