The Allahabad High Court has held that the right of an individual to live with a person of their choice, regardless of religion, is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further clarified that interfaith live-in relationships do not, per se, amount to an offence under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, provided there is no attempt at forced or fraudulent conversion.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Singh delivered this judgment while deciding a batch of 12 writ petitions filed by interfaith couples seeking protection from interference by private respondents and family members.
Background
The petitioners, comprising major individuals of different faiths (including seven Muslim women living with Hindu men and five Hindu women living with Muslim men), approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus. They alleged that they were living together in consensual live-in relationships but faced life threats from their families and private respondents. They claimed that despite approaching the local police, no protection was provided, necessitating the intervention of the Court.
Counsel for the Parties
The petitioners were represented by Sri Shwetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel, who appeared as Amicus Curiae. He was assisted by Sri Yashraj Verma, Sri Dinkar Lal, Sri Sirajuddin, Sri Subir Lal, and Sri Sausthav Guha. Other counsels for the petitioners included Sri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav and Sri Shlok Jaiswal.
The State-respondents were represented by Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi and Sri Prabhash Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, along with Sri Yogesh Kumar, Sri Pramit Kumar Pal, Sri Suresh Babu, Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, and Sri Phool Chand, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Sri Uday Bhan Singh, Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.), also appeared in the matter.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Shwetashwa Agarwal argued that Article 21 grants the personal choice of whether to marry or enter a live-in relationship. He contended that:
- A major has the right to live with a partner of their choice outside of wedlock.
- Article 14 guarantees equal protection of law, and such relationships between consenting adults do not amount to any offence.
- Reliance was placed on several Supreme Court precedents, including Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M., emphasizing individual autonomy.
For the State: The Additional Chief Standing Counsel opposed the petitions on the following grounds:
- The petitioners failed to comply with Sections 8 and 9 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
- Conversion is required not just for marriage but for any relationship “in the nature of marriage.”
- The State relied on Kiran Rawat vs. State of U.P., contending that Muslim law does not recognize sex outside of marriage (“Zina”).
- Police protection could only be granted if there existed a credible threat and no unlawful act (violation of the 2021 Act) had been committed.
Court’s Analysis
The Court meticulously examined the interplay between fundamental rights and the U.P. Anti-Conversion Act, 2021.
1. Personal Liberty and Article 21: The Court observed that it sees the petitioners not as “Hindu and Muslim,” but as “two grown up individuals” who are living together by choice.
“The Courts and the Constitutional Courts in particular are enjoined to uphold the life and liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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.”
2. Equality and Non-Discrimination (Articles 14 & 15): Justice Singh emphasized that if law permits same-sex couples to live together, the State or family cannot object to heterosexual relationships of major individuals.
“If two persons of same religion may reside together in a live-in relationship, the other persons having different religion may also live together in a live-in relationship.”
3. Interpretation of the U.P. Anti-Conversion Act, 2021: The Court held that for an offence to be attracted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, “conversion” is a necessary prerequisite. Since no petitioner claimed to have converted, the Act was not violated.
“In the present batch of cases, no petitioner claimed that any attempt… was made by other petitioner for conversion of his/her religion… 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.”
The Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions with the following directions:
- Petitioners are at liberty to approach police for redressal if any harm is caused by private respondents.
- Police must examine the matter and find if substance exists for protection.
- The Government Order dated 31.08.2019 regarding safe houses for inter-religious couples must be strictly complied with.
- The Court clarified it did not adjudicate the correct age or protect against any other lawful proceedings.
The Court expressed appreciation for its Research Associate, Ms. Priyanshi Hirwani, for her assistance in drafting the judgment.
Case Title: Noori And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others (along with connected matters)
Case No: WRIT-C No. 41127 of 2025
