Love Beyond Faith: Allahabad HC Shields Interfaith Couples from Bigotry's Shadow

In a resounding affirmation of personal freedom, the Allahabad High Court has declared that interfaith live-in relationships between consenting adults do not violate Uttar Pradesh's controversial anti-conversion law. Delivering a common judgment on February 23, 2026, in Noori and Another vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others (WRIT-C No. 41127 of 2025) along with 11 connected petitions, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh granted police protection to 12 couples—seven Muslim women with Hindu partners and five Hindu women with Muslim men—facing threats from families and vigilantes.

The ruling underscores that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 targets forced conversions, not consensual cohabitation, reinforcing constitutional safeguards under Articles 14, 15, and 21.

From Secret Affection to Courtroom Battle

The petitions stemmed from young adults, all of majority age, who fell in love across religious lines and chose live-in relationships over marriage. They alleged persistent harassment, including life threats from relatives, after local police ignored their pleas for help. Filed between July and October 2025, these writs sought mandamus against state authorities to ensure non-interference and security.

No FIRs or complaints under the 2021 Act had been lodged against them, as no partner claimed religious conversion. Yet, families invoked "honour" and faith, echoing broader societal tensions amplified in media reports of similar cases.

Petitioners' Plea: Liberty Over Legacy

Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Shwetashwa Agarwal, assisted by multiple counsel, argued that Article 21 enshrines the right to choose partners freely, marry or not, and live out of wedlock. Citing Supreme Court landmarks like Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. (2006) and Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. (2018), they stressed that major individuals' consensual heterosexual relationships merit protection, especially sans conversion claims. A prior Allahabad HC ruling in Razia vs. State of U.P. (2023) had similarly shielded an interfaith live-in couple.

They rebutted state claims, noting Sections 8-9 of the Act apply only to voluntary conversions, not mere cohabitation.

State's Script: Conversion Law Trumps Romance?

U.P.'s Additional Chief Standing Counsel countered that live-in ties mimic marriage, triggering the Act's prohibitions under Sections 3 and 5 against conversions via "misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement." Without prior declarations, such relationships were "unlawful," they argued, relying on Division Bench decisions like Kiran Rawat vs. State of U.P. (2023)—barring premarital sex under Muslim law—and Asha Devi vs. State of U.P. (2020).

Threats were dismissed as "vague" without specific incidents, with protection conditional on legal compliance.

Decoding Dignity: Court's Constitutional Calculus

Justice Singh dismantled the state's stance, clarifying that the Act defines "conversion" as renouncing one faith for another (Section 2(c)). Absent evidence of inducement or change—none alleged here—no offence under Sections 3/5 arises. "Even interfaith marriage, per se , is not prohibited," he noted, as forced conversion can't be mandated for love.

Drawing from KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) on privacy's sanctity and Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India (2018) condemning honour killings, the court viewed couples as "two grown up individuals" exercising Article 21 autonomy. Equality under Articles 14/15 bars religion-based discrimination: if same-religion or same-sex live-ins are lawful, interfaith ones must be too.

Precedents like Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs. Union of India (2023) highlighted interfaith unions' historical perils, while local rulings ( Mayra @ Vaishnavi vs. State of U.P. , 2021; Akanksha vs. State of U.P. , 2025) affirmed protection sans marriage. The 2019 U.P. G.O. on safe houses for threatened couples was invoked as binding.

Rejecting Kiran Rawat 's personal law lens—lacking IPC enforcement—the court prioritized constitutional supremacy.

Key Observations

"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."

"Right to live with a person of his/her choice, irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty."

"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 heterosexual relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together."

"Considering Article 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."

Victory for Volition: Directives and Dawn of Precedent

The petitions were allowed: couples can seek police aid against harm, with officers verifying age and threats before acting. Complaints for actual conversion attempts remain open, and the 2019 G.O. binds authorities on safe houses. No age adjudication or bar on lawful probes.

This landmark eases fears for interfaith lovers, signaling courts won't conflate choice with coercion. As media echoed post-ruling— "Interfaith Marriage, Live-In Relationship Not Prohibited By UP's Anti-Conversion Law" —it bolsters unity in diversity, potentially influencing similar laws nationwide.