The Allahabad High Court ruled that UP’s anti-conversion law does not prohibit interfaith marriages or live-in relationships between consenting adults. The Court said the right to live with a person of one’s choice, regardless of religion, is protected under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
In an important judgment protecting personal liberty and freedom of choice, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 does not ban interfaith marriages or prevent interfaith couples from living together in a live-in relationship.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh in the case of Noori And Another v State of UP and 4 Others, while hearing a batch of 12 petitions filed by interfaith couples seeking police protection from threats allegedly made by family members and others.
Out of the 12 petitions, seven involved Muslim women living with Hindu men, while five involved Hindu women residing with Muslim men. The couples approached the Court claiming that they were being harassed and threatened because of their interfaith relationships.
During the hearing, the Court made strong observations on the constitutional rights of adults to choose their partners. The Bench clearly stated:
“Right to live with a person of his/her choice, irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty. Interference in a personal relationship, would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals. This Court fails to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even State can have objection to hetrosexual relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together,”
the Bench said.
The Court further clarified that live-in relationships are not illegal in India and are not punishable under any law. It observed:
“Therefore, considering Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the Act, 2021, it cannot be said that live-in relationship of interfaith couple is an offence,”
the Bench said.
The judge emphasised that the Court does not look at such couples through the lens of religion but as individuals exercising their personal liberty. The Bench observed:
“This Court does not see the petitioners herein as Hindu and Muslim, rather as two grown up individuals who out of their own free will and choice are living together peacefully and happily.”
Explaining the scope of the anti-conversion law, the Court stated that for the Act to apply, there must be actual conversion from one religion to another by illegal means such as misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, fraud, or conversion done solely for marriage.
The Bench clarified:
“Even the interfaith marriage, per se, is not prohibited under the Act, 2021. Provision has also been made under the Act, 2021, and according to which, if a person wishes to change/convert his or her religion, he/she is expected to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 8 & 9 of the Act, 2021. But one cannot be forced to convert his or her religion for the purposes of marriage or for living together in a live-in relationship,”
the Bench said.
The Court stressed that constitutional rights must be respected regardless of religion. It observed:
“The mere fact that the petitioners are living in an interfaith relationship, would not deprive them of their fundamental right as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of India. No discrimination can be made on the basis of caste, creed, sex or religion,”
the Bench said.
Highlighting the importance of unity in diversity, the judge further said:
“To disregard the choice of a person who is of the age of majority would not only be antithetic to the freedom of choice of a grown up individual but would also be a threat to the concept of unity in diversity”.
The Uttar Pradesh government had argued that live-in couples must comply with the provisions of the anti-conversion law. The State even submitted:
“One cannot freely move with another except in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 8 and 9 of the Act, 2021, or by marriage under the Special Marriage Act,”
the State said.
However, the amicus curiae, Senior Counsel Shwetashwa Agarwal, argued that the couples were merely living together and had not converted their religion.
He submitted:
“If a person intends to convert his/her religion, only then he/she will give a declaration in terms of Section 8 and 9 of the Act, 2021,”
Agarwal said.
After considering all submissions, the Court noted that none of the petitioners had claimed any attempt of religious conversion by their partners. The Bench observed:
“It is only claimed by the petitioners that they are living together in a live-in relationship and following their religion. Section 4 of the Act, 2021, gives power to any person to lodge F.I.R./complaint relating to the contravention of the provisions of the Act, 2021. In these cases, no F.I.R. or complaint has been lodged against any person that religion of one petitioner was converted or attempted to be converted. Therefore, it cannot be said under the facts and circumstances of these cases that any act in contravention of the provision of the Act, 2021, was made by the petitioners and a punishable offence was done by them,”
the Bench said.
The Court also referred to equality principles under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and held that law must apply equally to all citizens, regardless of religion. The judge stated:
“The Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India ensure equal treatment of all individual. It does not discriminate against citizens based on religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth,”
the judge said.
Reaffirming the duty of the State, the Court concluded:
“The mere fact that the petitioners are living in an interfaith relationship, would not deprive them of their fundamental right as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of India. No discrimination can be made on the basis of caste, creed, sex or religion,”
the judge said.
ALSO READ: Anti-Conversion Laws | Not Possible: CJI Gavai Declines Urgent Listing of Pleas
Granting relief, the Court permitted the couples to approach police authorities for protection if they face threats. It directed that the police must examine their age and allegations and provide protection in accordance with law. The Court also said that the couples are free to lodge complaints if anyone attempts to forcibly convert them.
This ruling is significant because it clearly separates interfaith relationships from unlawful religious conversion and reinforces that adult individuals have the constitutional right to choose their partners and live together peacefully, without fear of harassment or state interference.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Anti-Conversion Law
