In a significant reaffirmation of constitutional freedoms, the Allahabad High Court has held that consenting adults in interfaith live-in relationships are entitled to full protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, irrespective of marital status or religious differences.
Deciding a batch of petitions, the Court categorically observed that the Constitution safeguards “the freedom to choose one’s partner and the autonomy to decide the manner of living,” and that such personal choices cannot be curtailed by societal disapproval.
Keyword: Article 21 protection interfaith live-in relationship,
Tags: #AllahabadHighCourt #Article21 #LiveInRelationship #InterfaithCouple #PersonalLiberty #ConstitutionalLaw #UPConversionAct #RightToChoose #FundamentalRights
Brief Facts
The petitions were filed by major individuals belonging to different religions who had voluntarily entered into live-in relationships and were residing together without marriage.
They alleged:
-
Threats and harassment from family members and private individuals.
-
Failure of local police authorities to provide meaningful protection despite representations.
Consequently, they invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226, seeking protection of their life and liberty.
The matters were heard together, as they raised common concerns regarding interfaith couples facing social resistance and apprehended harm.
The State opposed the petitions, relying upon the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, contending that statutory safeguards concerning religious conversion had not been complied with. It was further argued that no concrete material demonstrated an imminent threat warranting police protection.
Petitioners’ Contentions
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that:
-
Both individuals were majors, legally competent to make independent life choices.
-
Article 21 protects not merely survival but dignity, privacy, and decisional autonomy.
-
The right to choose a partner, irrespective of religion, is intrinsic to personal liberty.
It was argued that interference by families or private individuals constituted a direct violation of fundamental rights and that the State bore a constitutional duty to ensure protection.
State’s Stand
The State contended that:
-
The apprehensions expressed were vague and unsupported by evidence of immediate danger.
-
Police protection cannot be granted mechanically in every case of a live-in relationship.
-
Since the parties belonged to different religions and had not demonstrated compliance with provisions of the 2021 Act, the Court should exercise caution.
Reference was also made to prior judicial observations on the legal status of live-in relationships in certain contexts.
Observations of the Court
The High Court undertook a detailed examination of Article 21 and reiterated that the right to life and personal liberty includes decisional autonomy in intimate relationships.
The Bench underscored:
Once individuals attain majority, their personal choices cannot be subjected to societal approval or familial control.
Key findings include:
-
Live-in relationships between consenting adults do not constitute any offence under law.
-
Denial of protection merely because parties are unmarried amounts to constitutional infringement.
-
Statutory provisions concerning unlawful religious conversion “operate in their own field” and cannot be invoked to deny protection absent proof of an offence.
The Court emphasized that constitutional courts are guardians of individual dignity and must shield citizens from coercion rooted in moral or social disapproval. Neither the State nor society, it observed, can intrude into the private sphere of consenting adults without clear legal justification.
Decision and Ratio
Disposing of the petitions, the Court directed the concerned authorities to ensure protection of the petitioners’ life and liberty in accordance with law.
However, it clarified that any proven statutory violation may be independently addressed under applicable legislation.
Emerging Legal Principle
The ratio is unequivocal:
-
The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 prevails.
-
Interfaith adult couples in live-in relationships cannot be denied protection solely on moral, social, or unsubstantiated statutory grounds.
Constitutional Significance
The ruling reinforces three foundational principles:
-
Autonomy Over Social Morality: Individual choice in intimate relationships overrides societal disapproval.
-
Majority Equals Legal Agency: Once adults, individuals control their personal decisions.
-
Protection Is Not Conditional on Marriage: Constitutional safeguards extend beyond formal marital relationships.
In reaffirming that dignity, privacy, and liberty lie at the heart of Article 21, the Allahabad High Court has once again positioned constitutional morality above social orthodoxy — strengthening the jurisprudence that personal freedom in matters of love and companionship is a protected constitutional domain.
Case Title: Noori And Anr Vs. State Of U.P. And Ors.
Case No.: WRIT - C No. - 41127 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Vivek Kumar Singh,
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Adv. Shlok Jaiswal,
Advocate for the Respondent: C.S.C.
By KANISHKSOCIALMEDIA For more updates on environmental regulations, public health policies, and developments in India’s governance, follow Kanishk Social Media for comprehensive and timely coverage of critical issues. If you found this article helpful, share it with others interested in India’s environmental efforts and policy innovation
0 Comments