The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has allowed a writ petition filed by an interfaith couple seeking protection for their life and liberty. The Court observed that a major individual’s decision to live with a partner of their choice is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that live-in relationships are neither prohibited nor punishable under any law.
Background of the Case
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful life and liberty. The petitioners, who are of different religions (Hindu and Muslim), decided to stay together in an interfaith live-in relationship. They claimed to have an apprehension of a life threat from private respondents. Although they approached the local police, they alleged that no action was taken, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.
Arguments Presented
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Article 21 of the Constitution grants personal choice regarding marriage or live-in relationships. It was contended that a major person has the right to marry or live with a person of their choice, including living outside of wedlock. Counsel further submitted that Article 14 guarantees equal protection of the law and that the petitioners, having attained the age of majority, are legally entitled to enter into such a relationship.
On behalf of the State, Shri Prabhas Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, submitted instructions stating that both petitioners are majors and that no First Information Report (FIR) had been registered regarding their living together.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, presiding over Court No. 81, emphasized the constitutional protections afforded to adult individuals. The Court noted:
“This Court does not see the petitioners herein of different religion 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 for a considerable time.”
The judgment highlighted that the right to live with a person of one’s choice is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty. The Court observed:
“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 Court cited several landmark Supreme Court precedents to support its reasoning:
- Lata Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006): The Apex Court held that once a person is a major, they can live with whomever they like, and parents can at most cut off social relations but cannot resort to violence or harassment.
- Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. (2018): The Supreme Court held that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is an integral part of Article 21.
- Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas (2018): The Court emphasized that upon attaining majority, an individual is entitled to exercise their choice and freedom, and courts should not assume the role of parens patriae.
- Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India (2018): The Court condemned “honour killings” as barbaric acts that interfere with the right to choose a life partner.
Regarding the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, the Court clarified that the Act “per se does not prohibit interfaith marriage” or live-in relationships. The Court remarked:
“The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in a catena of decision have held that live-in relation is neither prohibited nor punishable under any law. Therefore… it cannot be said that live-in relationship of interfaith couple is an offence.”
The Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
- Petitioners are at liberty to approach police authorities for redressal if harmed by private respondents. Police must examine the matter and the petitioners’ age and act in accordance with the law to protect their life and liberty.
- Petitioners may lodge a complaint if anyone attempts to convert their religion against their wishes through fraudulent means, force, or coercion.
- Directions in the Government Order dated 31.08.2019 mentioned in the case of Noori And Another vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others (2026), are binding and must be strictly complied with.
- The order does not impede any pending investigations.
The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the correct age of the petitioners and that the order does not protect them against any legal proceedings instituted in accordance with the law.
Case Details:
- Case Name: Kajal Prajapati And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Case Number: WRIT-C No. 3667 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
- Date: March 18, 2026
