The bench also made it clear that ongoing criminal proceedings should not stop the couple from living together, saying they are free to be with each other by their own choice.
New Delhi, June 10 – The Supreme Court of India has made it clear that the state cannot interfere in the lives of two consenting adults who choose to live together, even if they belong to different religions. This strong statement came while the Court granted bail to a Muslim man who had been in jail for nearly six months after marrying a Hindu woman in Uttarakhand.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma gave this order while allowing an appeal filed by the man, who was earlier denied bail by the Uttarakhand High Court in February 2025.
The man, Arif Siddiqui, was arrested under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on allegations of hiding his religion and marrying the woman using Hindu marriage rituals.
In its recent order, the Supreme Court said: “The respondent-state cannot have any objection to the appellant and his wife residing together inasmuch as they have been married as per the wishes of their respective parents and families.”
The bench also made it clear that ongoing criminal proceedings should not stop the couple from living together, saying they are free to be with each other by their own choice.
The Court ordered Siddiqui’s release on bail, stating that he had already spent nearly six months in jail and that the police had filed a charge sheet.
“Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made out,” said the bench.
The Supreme Court also noted the argument made by Siddiqui’s senior lawyer, who said that the FIR was lodged only after certain individuals and organisations objected to the interfaith marriage. It was also highlighted that the marriage happened in the presence and with the approval of both families.
Siddiqui had submitted an affidavit the day after the wedding, clearly stating that he would not pressure his wife to convert to Islam and that she was free to follow her own faith.
The FIR was registered on December 12, 2024, at the Rudrapur Police Station in Udham Singh Nagar district of Uttarakhand, just two days after the wedding, which took place on December 10.
Earlier, the Uttarakhand High Court had refused to grant Siddiqui bail. The court believed that Siddiqui had not revealed his religion before the wedding and said this was an intentional act. In its February 28 order, the High Court agreed with the prosecution’s claim that the man had deliberately hidden his Muslim identity and married the woman under Hindu rituals.
According to the FIR, the woman’s cousin had filed the complaint after the family visited Siddiqui’s home in Delhi and noticed that “most of the people belonged to a different community.”
Despite Siddiqui submitting an affidavit on December 11—a day after the wedding—promising not to force his wife to convert, the FIR was filed the next day.
Siddiqui’s lawyer argued that his mother is a practicing Hindu, and he had been raised in a Hindu environment. But the High Court did not accept these points and said the couple should have used the Special Marriage Act, which is meant for interfaith marriages in India.
The High Court believed that “correct facts had not been disclosed” and concluded that “The applicant does not deserve bail.”
The Supreme Court, however, took a different approach. It viewed the case as a matter of personal liberty and freedom of choice. The top court said the state cannot stop two adults from living together just because they follow different religions.
“This is an appropriate case where the relief of bail ought to be granted,” said the bench, while also noting that the couple may choose to live separately from their families and continue to live peacefully without any hindrance.
Case Title: AMAN SIDDIQUI ALIAS AMAN CHAUDHARY ALIAS RAJA VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manjula Gupta, AOR Mr. Sudhir Kumar Santoshi, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR Ms. Richa Mishra, Adv. Ms. Mushkan Mangla
View Order
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
