Allahabad High Court Upholds Right Of Interfaith Couples To Live Together; Says 2021 Anti-Conversion Law Not Attracted Without Proof Of Conversion

The Court noted that none of the petitioners in the matter, claimed that either partner had converted or attempted to convert. Further that there was no FIR or complaint alleging unlawful conversion had been lodged. Therefore, merely living together in an interfaith live-in relationship does not amount to conversion, it noted.

The Bench clarified that the Act does not prohibit interfaith relationships or marriages per se. It only regulates conversion carried out through misrepresentation, force, coercion, undue influence, fraud, or allurement. Thus, in the absence of any material suggesting conversion, the Act, 2021 could not be invoked to deny constitutional protection. The Court emphasised that the right to choose a partner, irrespective of caste, creed, or religion, is intrinsic to dignity, privacy, and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh while deciding a batch of 12 writ petitions filed by interfaith couples seeking police protection from alleged threats by family members, observed, “In these cases, no F.I.R. or complaint has been lodged against any person that religion of one petitioner was converted or attempted to be converted. Therefore, 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 by the petitioners and a punishable offence was done by them. Even the interfaith marriage, per se, is not prohibited under the Act, 2021. Provision has also been made under the Act, 2021, and according to which, if a person wishes to change/convert his or her religion, he/she is expected to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 8 & 9 of the Act, 2021. But one cannot be forced to convert his or her religion for the purposes of marriage or for living together in a live-in relationship”.

“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…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. Decision of an individual who is of the age of majority, to live with an individual of his/her choice is strictly a right of an individual and when this right is infringed it would constitute breach of his/her fundamental right to life and personal liberty as it includes right to freedom of choice”, the Bench further observed.

Shwetashwa Agarwal, Senior Counsel appeared as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner and Prabhash Kumar Tiwari, ACSC appeared for the respondent.

In the pertinent matter, the petitioners, all majors, approached the Court seeking protection of their life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

In seven petitions, Muslim women were residing with Hindu men; in five others, Hindu women were living with Muslim men. All claimed they were living together voluntarily in live-in relationships but were facing interference and threats from relatives.

The State opposed the petitions, arguing that the couples had not complied with Sections 8 and 9 of the 2021 Act, which mandate prior declaration and procedure in cases of religious conversion. It was contended that “relationship in the nature of marriage” would fall within the Explanation to Section 3 of the Act, thereby attracting penal consequences.

The Court carefully examined Sections 3 and 5 of the 2021 Act and emphasised that the offence under the statute is attracted only when there is conversion, defined under Section 2(c) as renouncing one’s religion and adopting another.

Accordingly, the Court noted, “…this Court is not a trial court to find out as to whether any offence has been committed by the petitioners by putting themselves in a live-in relationship. This Court at this stage is only examining the issue of apprehension of the petitioners based on threat to their life and liberty for the reasons/circumstances as narrated in the petition. If the petitioners have not committed any offence, this Court sees no reason as to why their prayer for grant of protection cannot be acceded to”.

The State had relied on a Division Bench ruling in Kiran Rawat and Another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko and Others 2023 SCC Online ALL 323, to argue that live-in relationships are not recognized under Muslim law.

“This Court sees no reason to take a different view in this matter also since the law is equal for all as per Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and 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 bench observed.

Therefore, holding that interference in such relationships would constitute an infringement of fundamental rights, the Court directed authorities to ensure protection of the petitioners’ life and liberty, in accordance with law.

Cause Title: Noori And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:39447]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Shwetashwa Agarwal, Senior Counsel appeared as Amicus Curiae, Yashraj Verma, Dinkar Lal, Sirajuddin, Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Shlok Jaiswal, Uday Bhan Singh, Advocates.

Respondents: Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, Prabhash Kumar Tiwari, ACSC, Yogesh Kumar, Pramit Kumar Pal, Suresh Babu, Arvind Kumar Singh, Vijay Kumar Srivastava, and Phool Chand, Standing Counsel, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment