In a most significant development with far reaching ramifications, we see that Allahabad High Court in a most robust, rational, remarkable and recent judgment titled Noori And Another v. State of UP and 4 Others in Writ – C No. – 41127 of 2025 along with 11 Others and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC:39447 that was reserved on 03.12.205 and then finally pronounced on 23.02.2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 neither prohibits interfaith marriages nor bars such couples from living together in a live-in relationship. It must be laid bare that the Court was dealing with a batch of 12 petitions, wherein seven Muslim women were residing with Hindu men and five Hindu women were residing with Muslim men . We need to note that the couples had approached the Allahabad High Court for police protection, alleging that they were facing threats from third parties including their family members.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Kumar Singh sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Heard Sri Shwetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appeared as Amicus Curiae and assisted by Sri Yashraj Verma, Sri Dinkar Lal, Sri Sirajuddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi & Sri Prabhash Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Sri Yogesh Kumar, Sri Pramit Kumar Pal, Sri Suresh Babu, Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, and Sri Phool Chand, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, in all the writ petitions.”
While stating the purpose of the writ petition, the Bench states in para 2 that, “By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful life and liberty and also for a direction to provide protection.”
As things stands, the Bench then mentions in para 3 that:
A large number of petitions are being filed in this Court wherein the petitioners have decided to stay together in an interfaith live-in relationship and they claim that they have an apprehension of life threat from the private respondents. The Police of concerned Districts have been approached by them, but no heed was paid, therefore, they have approached this Court by way of filing these writ petitions. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed that the Police of their District be directed to provide protection from private respondents as well as other family members/relatives/associates of the private respondents from causing any harm to the petitioners.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 28 that:
In the opinion of this Court, for attracting the offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, 2021, conversion from one religion to another religion is necessary and that conversion should be by practice of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion or allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage or by relationship in the nature of marriage. Sub- section (1) of Section 3 mandates that no person shall convert or attempt to convert any other person from one religion to another religion. “Conversion” has been defined under Section 2(c) of the Act, 2021, which is reproduced hereunder:
“2(c). “Conversion” means renouncing one’s own religion and adopting another religion.””
Most remarkably, the Bench points out in para 31 holding that:
This Court does not see the petitioners herein as Hindu and Muslim, rather as two grown up individuals who out of their own free will and choice are living together peacefully and happily for a considerable time. The Courts and the Constitutional Courts in particular are enjoined to uphold the life and liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to live with a person of his/her choice, irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty. Interference in a personal relationship, would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals. This Court fails to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even State can have objection to heterosexual relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together. Decision of an individual who is of the age of majority, to live with an individual of his/her choice is strictly a right of an individual and when this right is infringed it would constitute breach of his/her fundamental right to life and personal liberty as it includes right to freedom of choice, to choose a partner and right to live with dignity as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Most significantly, the Bench envisages in para 48 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in a catena of decision have held that live-in relation is neither prohibited nor punishable under any law. Therefore, considering Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the Act, 2021, it cannot be said that live-in relationship of interfaith couple is an offence. If an offence had been committed, it would have been reported by any person in terms of Section 4 of the Act, 2021. No F.I.R. or complaint has been registered till date in respect of live-in relationship of the petitioners. Secondly, this Court is not a trial court to find out as to whether any offence has been committed by the petitioners by putting themselves in a live-in relationship. This Court at this stage is only examining the issue of apprehension of the petitioners based on threat to their life and liberty for the reasons/circumstances as narrated in the petition. If the petitioners have not committed any offence, this Court sees no reason as to why their prayer for grant of protection cannot be acceded to.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 49 that:
The issue in hand, is the deprivation of fundamental right of seeking protection of life and liberty. I have no hesitation to hold that Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.”
Most fundamentally, the Bench then underscores in para 50 holding clearly, cogently and convincingly that:
It is the bounden duty of the State as per the Constitutional obligations casted upon it to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen’s religious belief. The mere fact that the petitioners are living in an interfaith relationship, would not deprive them of their fundamental right as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of India. No discrimination can be made on the basis of caste, creed, sex or religion.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 51 noting that:
Accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners stand allowed with the following observations:
(i) The petitioners herein are at liberty to approach the police authorities for redressal of their grievances, in case any harm is caused by private respondents or their associates. Upon receipt of such application, the police authorities shall examine the matter and age of the petitioners and if they find any substance in the allegations of the petitioners, they will act in accordance with law for protection of life, limb and liberty of the petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners may lodge a report/complaint if anybody attempts to convert their religion against their wishes, or by any fraudulent means, force, coercion, allurement, undue influence or practice of misrepresentation.
(iii) The directions contained in the above Government Order dated 31.08.2019 are binding upon all concerned authorities and shall be strictly complied with.
(iv) This order would not come in way of investigation, if any, pending before the Police Authorities.”
As an aside, the Bench then further observes in para 53 that:
Before parting with these cases, I would render my gratitude and appreciation for the invaluable assistance provided to the Court by Mr. Swetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, ably assisted by Sri Subir Lal and Sri Sausthav Guha, learned counsels for the petitioners.”
Adding more to it, the Bench then further hastens to add in para 55 noting that, “I would like to put in a word of appreciation for my Research Associate Ms. Priyanshi Hirwani, for her dexterity in research and superlative assistance in drafting of this judgment.”
For sake of clarity, the Bench then clarifies in para 56 holding that:
However, it is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the correct age of the petitioners. It is further clarified, this order has not been passed to protect the petitioners against any action or proceedings instituted in accordance with law.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 57 that, “Since the petition is being disposed of in limine, any person aggrieved by it is at liberty to apply for its recall, if the order has been obtained by suppression or concealment of facts or on false averments.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Allahabad High Court has made it indubitably clear that interfaith marriage, live-in relationship is not prohibited by anti-conversion law. To put it differently, it was made manifestly clear by the High Court that those who are of age of majority are free to indulge in inter-faith marriage and live-in relationship as there is no prohibition to it! No denying or disputing it!
”
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh
