'No Conversion, No Crime': Allahabad High Court Allows Police Protection for 12 Interfaith Live-In Couples

The Allahabad High Court has directed police authorities across concerned districts to ensure protection to 12 interfaith couples living in live-in relationships, holding that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 is not attracted in the absence of any conversion.

Deciding a batch of writ petitions led by one Noori and Another, the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh restrained both State and private respondents from interfering in the life and liberty of the petitioners and ordered that protection be provided if demanded or needed.

The petitioners, all majors, belonged to different faiths. In seven cases, Muslim women were residing with Hindu men, while in five cases, Hindu women were residing with Muslim men. Each couple claimed they were living together voluntarily and apprehended threats from family members and relatives. They told the court that despite approaching the local police, no effective action had been taken, prompting them to seek protection under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Opposing the petitions, the state argued that the couples had failed to comply with Sections 8 and 9 of the 2021 Act, which prescribe prior declaration and post-conversion formalities before the District Magistrate. Relying on Sections 3 and 5, the state contended that the explanation to Section 3 includes “relationship in the nature of marriage,” and therefore even a live-in relationship between interfaith partners could fall within the mischief of the Act. It was further argued that earlier Supreme Court decisions protecting interfaith unions were delivered before the 2021 Act came into force.

The state also relied on a division bench decision in Kiran Rawat and Another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko and Others (2023) to contend that Muslim law does not recognize sexual relations outside marriage and that such relationships cannot be protected.

Rejecting these submissions, court held that for Sections 3 and 5 of the 2021 Act to apply, there must first be “conversion,” defined under Section 2(c) as renouncing one’s religion and adopting another. In the present cases, ourt noted that no petitioner had claimed conversion, nor had any FIR or complaint been lodged alleging forced or fraudulent conversion.

Court observed that interfaith marriage per se is not prohibited under the 2021 Act and that conversion procedures under Sections 8 and 9 are triggered only when a person desires to change religion. It held that a person cannot be compelled to convert for the purpose of marriage or for residing in a live-in relationship.

Emphasising constitutional protections, court reiterated that the right to choose a partner flows from Article 21 and is intrinsic to personal liberty and dignity. Citing decisions in Lata Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2006), Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. and Ors. reported in (2018), Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India (2018), and KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017), court underlined that once individuals attain majority, their choice of partner cannot be curtailed by family, society, or the state unless there is a valid legal prohibition.

Court also distinguished Kiran Rawat, observing that personal law principles cannot override statutory and constitutional protections, and that there exists no penal provision under Indian law criminalising live-in relationships between consenting adults.

Holding that Articles 14 and 15 guarantee equal protection and prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion, court said that if two persons of the same religion are entitled to reside together, the same right extends to individuals of different religions.

Allowing all 12 petitions, court restrained interference with the petitioners’ peaceful cohabitation and directed the police authorities of the respective districts to ensure their safety and provide protection if demanded or required.

Case Title: Noori And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Judgment Date: February 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh