Recently, the Allahabad High Court held that consenting adults in interfaith live-in relationships are entitled to full constitutional protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21, irrespective of marriage or religious differences. Deciding a batch of petitions, the Court made it clear that personal autonomy cannot be curtailed by societal disapproval, firmly observing that the Constitution protects “the freedom to choose one’s partner and the autonomy to decide the manner of living.”
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 that their families and certain private individuals were threatening and harassing them on account of their interfaith relationship. Despite approaching local police authorities seeking protection, they claimed no meaningful assistance was extended. This compelled them to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions to safeguard their life and liberty. The matters were heard together as they raised common concerns involving interfaith couples facing resistance and apprehended harm. The State opposed the pleas by referring to the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, contending that statutory safeguards relating to religious conversion had not been complied with and that no concrete material demonstrated an imminent threat.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioners argued that both individuals were majors competent to make independent life decisions, including the choice of a partner and the decision to cohabit. It was submitted that Article 21 guarantees not merely survival but the right to live with dignity, privacy, and autonomy. Reliance was placed on established constitutional jurisprudence affirming that the right to choose a partner, irrespective of caste or religion, is intrinsic to personal liberty. The petitioners contended that interference by family members or others amounted to a direct infringement of fundamental rights, and that the State bore a constitutional obligation to ensure their protection.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the State argued that the apprehensions expressed were vague and unsupported by specific evidence of immediate danger. It was contended that police protection cannot be granted mechanically in every case of live-in relationships. The State further submitted that since the parties belonged to different religions and had not demonstrated compliance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, the Court should be cautious in granting blanket protection. Reference was also made to earlier judicial observations concerning the legal status of live-in relationships in certain contexts.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the scope of Article 21, reiterating that the right to life and personal liberty encompasses decisional autonomy in intimate relationships. The Bench underscored that once individuals attain majority, “their personal choices cannot be subjected to societal approval or familial control.” It categorically held that live-in relationships between consenting adults do not constitute any offence under law and that denial of protection merely because the parties are unmarried would amount to constitutional infringement.
Addressing the State’s reliance on the 2021 Act, the Court clarified that statutory provisions relating to unlawful religious conversion “operate in their own field” and cannot be invoked to deny protection in the absence of a demonstrated offence. The Court emphasized that constitutional courts are guardians of individual dignity and must shield citizens from coercion rooted in moral or social disapproval, observing that neither the State nor society can intrude into the private sphere of consenting adults without clear legal justification.
The decision of the Court:
Disposing of the petitions, the Court directed the concerned authorities to ensure protection of the petitioners’ life and liberty in accordance with law, while clarifying that any proven statutory violation may be dealt with independently under applicable legislation. The ratio is clear, the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 prevails, and interfaith adult couples in live-in relationships cannot be denied protection solely on moral, social, or unsubstantiated statutory grounds.
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.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
