Why Allahabad HC ruled UP’s anti-conversion law does not bar interfaith live-in relationships

What Happened

• The Allahabad High Court ruled that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 does not prohibit interfaith couples from living together in a live-in relationship.
• Justice Vivek Kumar Singh delivered the ruling while hearing a batch of 12 petitions filed by interfaith (Hindu-Muslim) couples who sought police protection from threats by family members and third parties.
• The court held that two consenting adults are entitled to live together irrespective of religion, and such a relationship does not automatically attract the provisions of the 2021 Act in the absence of actual conversion.
• The judgment distinguished between interfaith cohabitation and religiously motivated conversion — only the latter falls within the Act's scope.
• The bench clarified that the Act only regulates conversion carried out through misrepresentation, force, coercion, undue influence, fraud, or allurement — not voluntary interfaith relationships themselves.
• The court granted protection to all 12 petitioner couples and directed police to ensure their safety.

Static Topic Bridges

Article 21 — Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of Article 21 since the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case has extended it to cover a wide spectrum of rights, including the right to privacy, dignity, and personal autonomy. The right to choose one's partner has been consistently held to flow from Article 21.

In Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), the Supreme Court held that a major individual has the right to marry any person of their choice, and interference in such personal matters by police or administration would be unconstitutional. The Privacy judgment (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017) further reinforced that decisional autonomy — including choices about intimate relationships — lies at the core of Article 21.

Anti-Conversion Laws in India — Historical and Legal Context

Anti-conversion laws in India (often called "Freedom of Religion Acts") have existed at the state level since the 1960s. Odisha was the first state to enact one in 1967. These laws do not prohibit conversion per se — they prohibit conversion by force, fraud, allurement, or coercion. The constitutional basis is that the right to propagate religion under Article 25 does not include the right to convert another person.

The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, commonly called the "love jihad law," went further than earlier state laws by: - Covering conversion through marriage (Section 3): conversions through marriage by prohibited means are deemed unlawful - Requiring prior notice to the District Magistrate before conversion - Making certain offences non-bailable and cognizable - Prescribing up to 10 years imprisonment for aggravated forms (conversion of minors, women, SC/ST persons) - The 2024 Amendment strengthened penalties further

Articles 14, 15, and 19 — Equality and Freedom of Association

Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(c) protects the right to form associations. Collectively, these articles prevent the state from treating interfaith couples differently from same-faith couples.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) reaffirmed that constitutional morality must prevail over social morality, and that the constitutional guarantee of equality encompasses the right of individuals to make choices about intimate relationships.

Live-In Relationships and Indian Law

Live-in relationships (unmarried cohabitation) occupy a legally grey area in India. While no statute explicitly legalises them, Supreme Court and High Court rulings have progressively protected partners in such relationships. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) was the first legislation to recognise live-in relationships by including "relationship in the nature of marriage" within its protective scope.

Key judicial positions on live-in relationships: - S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010): Supreme Court held that living together is not illegal; cannot be punishable under morality clauses - Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013): SC laid down criteria for a relationship to qualify as "in the nature of marriage" under PWDVA - D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010): SC held only live-in relationships akin to marriage attract PWDVA protection

Key Facts & Data

• Case: Noori And Another v State of UP and 4 Others (2026 AHC 39447)
• Judge: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, Allahabad High Court
• Petitioners: 12 interfaith couples (Hindu-Muslim) seeking police protection
• UP Act at issue: Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (Act 3 of 2021)
• Section 3 of the Act prohibits conversion through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or fraud
• The court held the Act is not attracted without evidence of actual conversion by prohibited means
• Penalty under Section 5: 1-5 years imprisonment (aggravated: 2-10 years) for unlawful conversion
• Articles invoked by court: 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 21 (life and personal liberty)
• Previous conflicting HC bench ruling (2023): a different Allahabad HC bench had held that the 2021 Act applies to live-in relationships where conversion is intended — the 2026 ruling narrows and clarifies this position
• Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Haryana, Arunachal Pradesh, and Odisha also have anti-conversion laws