Allahabad High Court Affirms Rights of Interfaith Couples in Uttar Pradesh
The Allahabad High Court delivered a significant ruling on Monday, stating that Uttar Pradesh's anti-conversion law does not prohibit marriage or live-in relationships between consenting adults of different religions. This decision came during the hearing of a batch of 12 petitions seeking police protection for interfaith couples.
Fundamental Right to Choice and Liberty
In a powerful statement, the court emphasized that "the right to live with a person of his/her choice, irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to the right to life and liberty." The bench further elaborated that if the law permits two persons of the same sex to live together peacefully, then neither any individual nor a family nor even the state can have objection to a heterosexual relationship of two individuals living together.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, citing the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, clarified that courts do not view couples through the lens of Hindu and Muslim identities as long as those relationships involve mutual consent. "Interfaith marriage, per se, is not prohibited under the Act," the court stated unequivocally.
Legal Framework and Constitutional Protections
The court provided important clarification regarding religious conversion procedures, noting that "if a person wishes to change/convert his or her religion, he/she is expected to follow the procedure prescribed under sections 8 and 9 of the Act. But one cannot be forced to convert his or her religion for the purposes of marriage or for living together in a live-in relationship."
In marriage or a live-in relationship, the court asserted that the right to life must be placed on a higher pedestal, regardless of religious beliefs. "The mere fact that the petitioners are in interfaith relationships would not deprive them of their fundamental right as envisaged in the Constitution. There can be no discrimination based on caste, creed, sex or religion," the judgment declared.
Protection Against Intimidation and Discrimination
Justice Singh warned that any attempt to intimidate adult, consenting couples marrying or living together would not only be "antithetical to freedom of choice" but also tantamount to challenging the concept of unity in diversity. This statement came in response to the UP government's argument that live-in couples needed to comply with the provisions of the anti-conversion law.
The court's ruling represents a significant interpretation of how personal freedoms intersect with religious legislation in contemporary India. By affirming that interfaith relationships themselves do not violate the anti-conversion law, the judgment provides important legal clarity for couples navigating religious differences while exercising their constitutional rights.
This decision reinforces the principle that personal choice in relationships transcends religious boundaries when based on mutual consent between adults. The court's emphasis on constitutional protections over religious considerations marks an important development in the ongoing dialogue about individual liberties in India's diverse social landscape.
