The Allahabad High Court has affirmed that the right to live in a consensual interfaith live-in relationship is an inseparable facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a landmark ruling across eleven consolidated writ petitions, the Court rejected the State’s attempt to criminalize such relationships under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and directed police authorities to provide immediate protection to couples facing threats from families or communities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, comprising twelve interfaith couples - seven Muslim women living with Hindu men and five Hindu women living with Muslim men - have chosen to reside together in live-in relationships after attaining majority. They allege sustained threats, harassment, and intimidation from family members and community groups opposed to their interfaith unions. Despite approaching local police for protection, no actionable response was received, compelling them to seek judicial intervention.
Procedural History
- 2025: Eleven writ petitions filed across multiple districts of Uttar Pradesh seeking protection under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- December 2025: Judgment reserved after extensive hearings.
- February 2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, consolidating all petitions for a common order.
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioners: Argued that their live-in relationships are lawful, consensual, and protected under constitutional rights to autonomy, dignity, and choice. They cited Lata Singh, Shafin Jahan, and KS Puttaswamy to establish that religious identity does not negate the right to choose a partner.
- Respondent State: Contended that the petitioners violated Section 3 and 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, by cohabiting without prior conversion declarations under Sections 8 and 9. The State claimed the relationships were unlawful and that no credible threat existed.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing police authorities to provide immediate protection from threats by private respondents, including family members, and to ensure their safety while living together.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the mere existence of an interfaith live-in relationship between consenting adults constitutes an offence under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and whether the State is obligated to protect such couples under Article 21 despite the absence of formal marriage or conversion declarations.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on multiple Supreme Court precedents to assert that the right to choose a life partner - irrespective of religion - is intrinsic to Article 21. They cited Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh to establish that interfaith relationships cannot be interfered with by families or the State. They further invoked Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. to argue that societal disapproval cannot override constitutional liberty. The petitioners emphasized that the Act, 2021, applies only to actual religious conversion by fraud, force, or allurement - not to cohabitation. They noted that no FIR had been filed against any petitioner under the Act, and that compliance with Sections 8 and 9 is mandatory only for conversion, not for cohabitation.
For the Respondent
The State contended that Section 3(1) of the Act, 2021, explicitly includes "relationship in the nature of marriage" as a form of conversion, thereby making live-in relationships between persons of different faiths presumptively unlawful unless preceded by statutory declarations under Sections 8 and 9. The State relied on Kiran Rawat v. State of U.P. to argue that Muslim personal law prohibits premarital relationships, and that the petitioners’ conduct was therefore contrary to public order and religious norms. It further asserted that the petitioners’ apprehensions were vague and speculative, lacking contemporaneous complaints or evidence of imminent danger.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous examination of the constitutional framework and statutory provisions. It began by affirming that the right to choose a partner, whether for marriage or cohabitation, is a core component of personal liberty under Article 21, as repeatedly held in Shafin Jahan, KS Puttaswamy, and Shakti Vahini. The Court emphasized that dignity, autonomy, and privacy are not contingent upon societal approval or religious conformity.
"The Constitution does not require individuals to first convince others of the legitimacy of the exercise of constitutional rights before they exercise them."
The Court rejected the State’s interpretation of Section 3 of the Act, 2021, noting that the term "conversion" is defined in Section 2(c) as "renouncing one’s own religion and adopting another religion." The Court held that mere cohabitation, without any evidence of religious renunciation or adoption, cannot trigger the provisions of the Act. The explanation to Section 3, which includes "relationship in the nature of marriage," was interpreted narrowly: it applies only where conversion is the purpose of the relationship, not where it is merely a consequence.
The Court distinguished Kiran Rawat, observing that while Muslim personal law may prohibit premarital sex, Indian law cannot enforce religious doctrines as criminal norms. The Court stated: "A person cannot be punished according to Muslim Law/Islam, as quoted in Kiran Rawat’s judgment, because no provision in the Indian Penal Code or any other Act prescribes lashes or stoning to death."
The Court further noted that the State’s obligation to protect life and liberty is not conditional upon the legality of the relationship. Even if a relationship were later found to be unlawful, the State’s duty to prevent violence and threats remains absolute under Shakti Vahini. The Court also referenced its own prior rulings in Mayra @ Vaishnvi Vilas Shirshikar and Akanksha v. State of U.P., which had similarly protected live-in couples regardless of marital status.
The Court concluded that the absence of any FIR or complaint under the Act, 2021, negated the State’s claim of criminality. It held that the petitioners’ conduct did not constitute an offence under any law, and that their fear of violence was real, documented, and constitutionally actionable.
The Verdict
The petitioners won. The Court held that the right to live in a consensual interfaith live-in relationship is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, irrespective of religious differences or marital status. The State is obligated to provide protection to such couples upon request, and police authorities must act in accordance with the 2019 Government Order on threat assessment and safe accommodation. No criminal liability arises from cohabitation alone without proof of religious conversion by fraud or coercion.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Live-in Relationships Are Not Presumptively Illegal
- Practitioners must argue that cohabitation without conversion declaration does not attract the UP Conversion Act, 2021.
- Courts must distinguish between relationship and conversion: the latter requires proof of religious renunciation and adoption.
- Police cannot refuse protection on grounds that a couple has not complied with Sections 8 and 9 of the Act.
State Protection Is a Constitutional Obligation, Not a Discretion
- The State’s duty to protect under Article 21 is triggered by credible apprehension of harm, not by the legality of the relationship.
- The 2019 UP Government Order mandating threat assessment and safe housing is binding on all district authorities.
- Failure to act constitutes a violation of constitutional duty and may attract departmental action.
Religious Personal Law Cannot Override Constitutional Rights
- Courts must reject arguments that personal religious doctrines (e.g., Muslim law on zina) can justify denying constitutional protection.
- Indian law cannot enforce religious prohibitions as criminal offences unless codified in secular statutes.
- The right to choose a partner is inviolable, even if it challenges social or religious norms.
