-
by sayum
24 February 2026 8:15 AM
"Neither State, Nor Law, Nor Society Can Dictate The Choice of Partner" , On February 23, 2026, the Allahabad High Court addressing the pressing constitutional question of whether interfaith couples living together without marriage are entitled to State protection, and whether the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 bars such relationships.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh emphatically ruled in favour of the petitioners, holding that the right to choose a partner and cohabit flows directly from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that the Anti-Conversion Act is simply not attracted in the absence of any allegation or material of actual conversion.
"This Court Does Not See The Petitioners As Hindu And Muslim, Rather As Two Grown Up Individuals Who Out Of Their Own Free Will Are Living Together Peacefully"
A large number of writ petitions had been piling up before the Allahabad High Court, each presenting a strikingly similar set of facts — young men and women belonging to different faiths, who had fallen in love and decided to reside together in a live-in relationship, were being threatened by family members and private individuals. When they approached local police authorities for protection, no heed was paid. Left with no recourse, they knocked on the doors of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State not to interfere in their peaceful lives and to provide them physical protection.
Of the 12 petitions heard together, 7 involved Muslim girls residing with Hindu boys, while 5 involved Hindu girls residing with Muslim boys. None of the couples had converted their religion. They were simply living together. Recognising the constitutional importance of the controversy, the Court appointed Senior Advocate Sri Shwetashwa Agarwal as Amicus Curiae to assist with arguments.
The central legal battleground in the case was the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The State's Additional Chief Standing Counsel mounted a formidable challenge, arguing that since none of the petitioners had filed a declaration under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act — which requires a person intending to convert to give 60 days' advance notice to the District Magistrate — their interfaith cohabitation was unlawful and could not receive judicial protection. The State further argued that the Explanation to Section 3 of the Act specifically brings "relationship in the nature of marriage" within the definition of conversion by prohibited means, and therefore the petitioners had violated the Act.
The State also leaned heavily on the Division Bench judgment of the same Court in Kiran Rawat v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 323, which had observed that no recognition can be given to sexual relationships outside marriage under Muslim personal law, referencing the Islamic concept of "Zina."
The Amicus Curiae countered that the petitioners were doing nothing more than living together — they had not converted, nor had they attempted to convert one another. Compliance with Sections 8 and 9 is triggered only when a person actually desires to convert their religion. A live-in relationship, by itself, does not amount to conversion or an attempt at conversion.
The Court's Decisive Interpretation of the Anti-Conversion Act
The Court accepted the Amicus Curiae's reading unreservedly and demolished the State's argument with surgical precision. It held that for Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, 2021 to be attracted, there must first be a "conversion" — defined under Section 2(c) as "renouncing one's own religion and adopting another religion." In this batch of cases, no petitioner had claimed that any attempt at conversion was made. They were following their own respective religions while simply cohabiting.
"In the present batch of cases, no petitioner claimed that any attempt, in any manner, was made by other petitioner for conversion of his/her religion. It is only claimed by the petitioners that they are living together in a live-in relationship and following their religion," the Court recorded.
Crucially, the Court further held that even an interfaith marriage, per se, is not prohibited under the Act, 2021. The procedure under Sections 8 and 9 applies only when a person voluntarily wishes to change their religion — it cannot be used as a pre-condition to deny protection to couples in a live-in relationship. "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 Court declared.
On the Kiran Rawat observation regarding Muslim personal law's prohibition of premarital relationships, the Court gave a sharp and constitutionally grounded answer: "There is no provision in the Indian Penal Code or any other Act to punish a man or woman with lashes or stoning to death. Therefore, a person cannot be punished according to Muslim Law/Islam." Constitutional guarantees, the Court made clear, override personal law tenets.
Article 21 — The Constitutional Bedrock
The Court conducted an extensive survey of Supreme Court precedents to anchor the right to choose a partner within the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Quoting the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475, the Court reaffirmed that once a person attains majority, they can live with whosoever they like. The Supreme Court had in that case declared that "honour killings" are "nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons who deserve harsh punishment," and directed police across the country to ensure that inter-caste and inter-religious couples are not harassed.
In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368, the Supreme Court had held that "the choice of a partner whether within or outside marriage lies within the exclusive domain of each individual. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable. The absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith." The Allahabad High Court found these principles squarely applicable.
Relying on Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192 — the honour killing judgment — the Court cited the Supreme Court's powerful words: "life and liberty sans dignity and choice is a phenomenon that allows hollowness to enter into the constitutional recognition of identity of a person." The right to choose a life partner, the Supreme Court had held in that case, is an inextricable part of human dignity itself.
From the nine-judge bench decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, the Court drew upon the principle that "Privacy of the individual is an essential aspect of dignity... the family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral to the dignity of the individual." Personal choices governing a way of life, the Court underscored, are intrinsic to the right of privacy.
"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 Any Objection To Heterosexual Relationship Of Two Major Individuals"
Equality Before Law — The Article 14 and 15 Dimension
The Court added a powerful equality dimension to its ruling. It reasoned that if two persons of the same religion are entitled to live together in a live-in relationship and receive State protection, denying the same protection to an interfaith couple would be a clear act of discrimination prohibited under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. "The law is equal for all as per Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India," the Court stated, adding that the Constitution does not discriminate against citizens on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
The Court had earlier in Akanksha v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 35171 of 2025, granted protection to a same-religion couple living together without marriage. The principle laid down there — that the absence of marriage does not deprive major individuals of their fundamental rights under Article 21 — was held to apply with equal, if not greater, force to interfaith couples.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act — Legislative Recognition of Live-In Relationships
The Court also took note of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which recognizes "relationship in the nature of marriage" as deserving legal protection, to hold that the legislature itself has acknowledged the existence and legitimacy of live-in relationships. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Nandkumar v. State of Kerala, (2018) 16 SCC 620 to buttress this point.
The Supreme Court's Word in Supriyo — Constitutional Rights Need No Social Approval
Drawing further from the Constitution Bench ruling in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, AIR 2023 SC 5823, the Court highlighted the Supreme Court's observation that "the Constitution does not require individuals to first convince others of the legitimacy of the exercise of constitutional rights before they exercise them." Inter-caste and interfaith couples have historically faced enormous hostility and violence, but Parliament enacted the Special Marriage Act, 1954 precisely because it recognises that fundamental rights are not contingent upon community approval.
State's Binding Government Order — Police Must Protect
The Court also invoked a Government Order issued by the State of U.P. itself on August 31, 2019, pursuant to earlier directions in Suman Ahirwar v. State of U.P., which mandates that police authorities must assess the threat perception of couples facing honour-based threats, provide security and safe accommodation, and treat such complaints with utmost sensitivity. The Court held that these directions are binding on all concerned authorities and must be strictly complied with.
Allowing all 12 writ petitions, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh passed the following directions. The petitioners are at liberty to live together peacefully and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. In case of any disturbance or credible threat, the petitioners may approach the Commissioner of Police, SSP, or SP of their district. Upon receiving such an application, the police authorities shall examine the matter, verify the majority and voluntary cohabitation of the petitioners, and if they find any substance in the allegations, shall act in accordance with law to protect the life, limb and liberty of the petitioners. No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners unless a cognizable offence is actually registered against them in accordance with law. The petitioners may also lodge a complaint if any person attempts to convert their religion against their will by force, coercion, allurement, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation.
The Court also clarified that it had not adjudicated the correct age of the petitioners, and that its order does not protect them against any action or proceedings lawfully instituted against them for any other offence.
This judgment is a comprehensive and constitutionally robust affirmation that the right to love, cohabit, and choose a life partner — irrespective of religion — is not a matter of social grace, police discretion, or statutory compliance under the Anti-Conversion Act, but a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court decisively cut through the State's attempt to stretch the Anti-Conversion Act beyond its plain meaning by holding that without an actual conversion or attempt at conversion, the Act is simply not attracted. Personal law objections and religious tenets, however deeply held, cannot override constitutional guarantees. The State has a positive obligation — not a discretionary one — to protect the lives and liberties of consenting major individuals who choose to live together in an interfaith relationship.
Date of Decision: February 23, 2026
