While granting protection to an interfaith couple who apprehended risk to their lives, the Allahabad High Court has held that the right to choose a partner irrespective of caste, creed or religion is inherent under the right to life and personal liberty, which is an integral part of the Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court further affirmed that, considering Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, it could not be said that a live-in relationship of an interfaith couple is an offence.

The Allahabad High Court was considering a protection plea of a couple who sought no interference in their peaceful life and liberty by the private respondents.

The Single Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held,“Right to choose a partner irrespective of caste, creed or religion, is inhered under right to life and personal liberty, an integral part of the Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

“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, considering Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the Act, 2021, it cannot be said that live-in relationship of interfaith couple is an offence. If an offence had been committed, it would have been reported by any person in terms of Section 4 of the Act, 2021. No F.I.R. or complaint has been registered till date in respect of live-in relationship of the petitioners”, it added.

Advocate Dhara Singh represented the Petitioner while Chief Standing Counsel represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioners had decided to stay together in an interfaith live-in relationship, and they claimed that they had an apprehension of a life threat from the private respondents. They had also approached the Police of their concerned District, but no heed was paid. It was in such circumstances that they filed a writ petition before the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that the 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, to choose a partner and right to live with dignity as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court further laid emphasis on the fact that it had already dealt with interfaith marriage contracted by the petitioners, and a total of 17 petitions about interfaith marriage were heard and allowed by it in the case of Mayra @ Vaishnvi Vilas Shirshikar and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others (2021). It was observed therein that the choice of a partner, whether within or outside marriage, lies within the exclusive domain of each individual. It was further observed that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (in short "the Act, 2021) does not prohibit interfaith marriage.

Stating that the right to live with a person of his/her choice, irrespective of the religion professed by them, is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty, the Bench held that if the petitioners have not committed any offence, there was no reason as to why their prayer for the grant of protection could not be acceded to.

“I have no hesitation to hold that Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties”, the Bench held while allowing the Petition.

The Bench thus granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the police authorities for reddressal of their grievances, in case any harm is caused by private respondents or their associates.

Cause Title: Kajal Prajapati And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:55672)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Dhara Singh, Kuldeep Kumar Gupta

Respondent: Chief Standing Counsel

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Vivek Kumar Singh

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.