The Allahabad High Court, while granting protection to interfaith live-in couples, made it clear that adult individuals have a constitutional right to live with a partner of their choice and cannot be denied protection merely on the ground that they are in an interfaith live-in relationship.
In this context, the Court observed that,
“This Court does not see the petitioners herein 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 observation was made by a Single Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh while deciding a batch of 12 petitions led by Noori and Another. In these petitions, seven Muslim women were living with Hindu men and five Hindu women were living with Muslim men.
The interfaith couples approached the Court alleging interference by their family members in their peaceful lives and expressing apprehension to their life and liberty. All petitions sought police protection.
Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192, it strongly condemned so-called “honour killings” carried out in the name of family prestige or false notions of honour, observing that such acts are not only horrific and barbaric but also amount to unconstitutional interference with an individual’s right to choose a life partner and live with dignity.
The Bench further cited another judgment of Supreme Court passed in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and Another vs. Union of India, AIR 2023 SC 5823.
The Court referred the relevant paragraph of the above-mentioned judgment in the following terms,
“Inter-caste and interfaith marriages were uncommon in the colonial era and established customs or usages did not govern such marriages. Then, as now, society subjected those who entered into inter-caste and interfaith marriages to discrimination and lence. There was initially no legal framework in place which governed such marriages. The Special Marriage Act 1872 was enacted to enable the solemnisation of marriages independent of personal law. If two people be-longing to different religions wished to marry, they were each required to renounce their respective religion in order to avail of its pro-visions. The law at the time did not supply a framework in terms of which two persons belonging to different religions could retain their association or spiritual connection to their respective religions and still marry one another.”
The Bench made it unequivocally clear that the right of a major to choose a life partner is not a matter of social approval but a constitutional command. Freedom of choice in inter-caste and interfaith relationships is an inseparable component of the right to life and personal liberty. Such interference would be constitutionally untenable, being contrary to the mandate of Article 21 of Constitution of India..
The Court noted that,
“To disregard the choice of a person who is of the age of majority would not only be antithetic to the freedom of choice of a grown up individual but would also be a threat to the concept of unity in diversity.”
On behalf of the State, it was argued that the petitioners had not complied with Sections 8 and 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. Since the relationship was “in the nature of marriage,” prior declaration and procedural compliance were allegedly required. The State contended that protection could not be granted without adherence to the statutory procedure.
The Court rejected the submission of the State and held that the provisions of the 2021 Act come into operation solely where there is a completed conversion or a clear attempt to convert.
“In the opinion of this Court, for attracting the offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, 2021, conversion from one religion to another religion is necessary and that conversion should be by practice of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion or allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage or by relationship in the nature of marriage.”
The Court ruled that “Conversion” implies renouncing one’s religion and adopting another. No allegation or FIR had been lodged asserting that either party had converted or attempted to convert the other.
The Court clarified that no adult can be compelled to convert merely because he or she chooses to live or marriage with a person of a different faith.
It was observed that religious difference, by itself, cannot render a relationship unlawful. Consenting adults choosing to cohabit in a live-in relationship do not attract penal consequences under the Indian Penal Code or any statutory provision.
Referring to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, the Court reiterated that petitioners are living in an interfaith relationship, would not deprive them of their fundamental right and prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or religion.
Declining to take a different view, the Court found that,
“……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. The Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India ensure equal treatment of all individual. It does not discriminate against citizens based on religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.”
Finally, the Court directed the police authorities to take immediate action in accordance with law upon receiving any complaint of threat or forceful conversion and to ensure adequate protection to the petitioners.
Case: Noori And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Date of Order: 23.02.2026
See the Order: Noori And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
