In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 cannot be used to prevent interfaith couples from living together voluntarily and peacefully. The court emphasised that when two consenting adults choose to live together, their relationship must be viewed through the lens of constitutional freedoms rather than religious identity.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh made the remarks while hearing a batch of petitions filed by interfaith couples seeking protection from harassment and threats allegedly posed by family members and other individuals. The judge stated that the decision of two adults to live together, irrespective of their religious backgrounds, falls within the ambit of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution.
In its order, the court observed that the freedom to choose a partner is intrinsic to individual autonomy and personal dignity. Any interference in such personal relationships, the court noted, would amount to a serious violation of the individuals’ freedom of choice. Justice Singh clarified that courts do not assess interfaith couples through the prism of religion, but instead recognise them simply as two adults exercising their independent will.
The judge further remarked that if the law permits even same-sex couples to cohabit peacefully, then neither private individuals, families, nor the state can object to a heterosexual relationship between consenting adults belonging to different faiths. According to the court, personal relationships formed through free choice cannot be restricted merely because the individuals profess different religions.
Granting relief to the petitioners, the High Court allowed the couples to approach the police whenever they face threats or harassment. It directed law enforcement authorities to examine complaints carefully, verify the age and consent of the individuals involved, and provide protection where necessary to safeguard their life, liberty, and physical safety in accordance with the law.
The court also clarified the scope of the state’s anti-conversion legislation, explaining that an offence under the Act arises only when religious conversion occurs through force, coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or inducement, including conversion carried out solely for marriage or relationships resembling marriage. It stressed that interfaith marriage or a live-in relationship by itself does not constitute an offence under the statute.
Justice Singh pointed out that the Act already provides a legal procedure under Sections 8 and 9 for individuals who voluntarily wish to change their religion. However, the court underscored that no person can be compelled to convert for the purpose of marriage or cohabitation, reinforcing that voluntary relationships cannot automatically be treated as suspicious or unlawful.
Referring to constitutional protections, the court relied on Articles 14, 15, and 21, which guarantee equality before the law, prohibit discrimination on grounds such as religion or caste, and protect life and personal liberty. It ruled that living together in an interfaith relationship cannot deprive individuals of these fundamental rights and cannot be criminalised merely because of religious differences.
The case arose after several interfaith couples approached the High Court seeking police protection, claiming they faced intimidation and threats due to their relationships. Addressing these concerns, the court reiterated that the Constitution does not permit discrimination based on caste, creed, sex, or religion, and affirmed that if individuals of the same faith are free to live together, the same freedom must extend equally to people belonging to different religions.
The judgment reinforces the principle that personal autonomy and constitutional freedoms take precedence over social or familial objections, affirming that consensual relationships between adults cannot be restricted under the guise of religious regulation.
