Allahabad High Court Orders Police Protection For Hindu-Muslim Same-Sex Couple
The Court noted that no family member, relative or section of society has any legal right to interfere with, intimidate, or threaten the physical liberty of such a couple.
The Allahabad High Court has held that when two adult citizens choose to live together out of personal autonomy and choice, doing so in a live-in relationship is their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that no family member, relative or section of society has any legal right to interfere with, intimidate, or threaten the physical liberty of such a couple.
The Court directed that upon any obstruction arising, the petitioners could approach the concerned Commissioner of Police/SSP/SP with a certified copy of the order, who would provide immediate protection after verifying that the petitioners were consenting adults living together voluntarily.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary in the judgment, noted (translated from Hindi), “…The Court reaches this conclusion that when two adult citizens decide to live together by their personal autonomy and choice, living in a cohabitation (live-in relationship) is their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Family members, relatives, or any section of society have no legal right to cause obstruction in their peaceful cohabitation, to frighten-threaten them, or to violate their physical liberty. The absence of marital recognition does not give liberty to any third party or administrative machinery to attack the dignity and physical safety of adult citizens. The right to life and personal liberty is paramount in the constitutional scheme. Along with this, the right to cohabitation and autonomy (Article 21)…”.
Advocate Amar Nath Singh appeared for the petitioner and Ramit Kumar, Standing Counsel appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners, two adult women in a same-sex, interfaith live-in relationship, sought police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that certain family members, arrayed as private respondents, were threatening and harassing them.
Both the petitioners appeared before the Court, submitted mark sheets confirming their age, and were personally examined, with the Court recording that they had freely and fearlessly chosen to live together without coercion. The State opposed the petition, arguing that same-sex relationships lack social acceptance and that legislative recognition of such choices is not a fundamental right.
Referring to paragraph 149(iv) of the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in Supriyo alias Supriya Chakraborty & Ors. v. Union of India (2023) SCC OnLine SC 134, the Court held that queer and LGBTQ+ couples have an inviolable right under Article 21 to a union or relationship, mental, emotional or physical, flowing from privacy, choice and autonomy, even though legal recognition of such unions remains a legislative matter. The Court also relied on Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India for the principle that sexual orientation is intrinsic to liberty and dignity, and that courts must uphold constitutional morality over public morality.
Finding the petitioners to be adults capable of understanding their own welfare, whose decision was based on free consent, the Court allowed the petition, restraining interference with their live-in relationship and directing the concerned police authorities to provide immediate protection on request, upon verifying that the petitioners were consenting adults. Liberty was granted to the private respondents to seek recall of the order if the documents relied upon were shown to be forged.
Cause Title: F and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:195171)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Amar Nath Singh, Anadi Srivastava, Anju Yadav, Mahendra Yadav, Poonam Yadav, Prajjwal Yadav, Advocates.
Respondent: Ramit Kumar, Yogesh Kumar, Standing Counsel.