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

Court Reaffirms Right to Choose Life Partner as Fundamental Right

The Allahabad High Court has delivered a landmark judgment clarifying that the right to choose one's life partner is a fundamental constitutional right protected under the Indian Constitution[1]. In a significant decision that addresses the intersection of personal liberty and religious law, the court reaffirmed that the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act does not prohibit interfaith relationships between consenting adults[1]. The judgment emerged while the court was hearing a habeas corpus petition involving allegations that a couple in an inter-religious relationship had been wrongfully detained by their families, bringing into focus the tension between family objections and individual constitutional rights.

Justice Pankaj Bhatia, leading the bench, observed that both the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents protect individual autonomy in personal decisions such as choosing a partner, regardless of their faith[1]. The court made it abundantly clear that the state's institutions must not interfere with the free exercise of personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution[1]. This ruling marks an important moment in judicial interpretation, as it distinguishes between unlawful religious conversion—which the law legitimately addresses—and consensual adult relationships, which fall outside the scope of anti-conversion legislation.

Distinguishing Between Conversion and Consensual Relationships

One of the most critical aspects of the court's reasoning involved drawing a precise distinction between what constitutes unlawful religious conversion and what represents a consensual relationship between adults[2]. The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, specifically targets forced conversions and fraudulent inducements, not relationships based on mutual consent[1]. The court emphasized that conversion means renouncing one's own religion and adopting another, and highlighted that in the cases before it, no such conversion had actually taken place[2].

The bench noted that punishments under the anti-conversion law would not apply when there is no allegation of conversion from one religion to another through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, or allurement[4]. The court established that two ingredients must be proven for violations of the anti-conversion law: first, there must be actual conversion from one religion to another, and second, the conversion must have occurred through prohibited means such as force or fraud[2]. In the cases examined, the court found that all parties continued to follow their respective religions, demonstrating that no conversion had occurred[2].

The Court's Constitutional Perspective on Personal Liberty

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh underlined a fundamental principle that underpins the ruling: the state has a constitutional duty to protect the life and liberty of every citizen[3]. The bench further stated that no discrimination can be made on the basis of caste, creed, sex, or religion[3].

The right to human life is to be treated on a much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen's religious belief, and the mere fact that petitioners are living in an interfaith relationship would not deprive them of their fundamental right as envisaged in the Constitution of India.

The court drew a compelling parallel, noting 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[6]. This logical extension highlighted the inconsistency in selectively applying restrictions based on religious differences while permitting other forms of consensual cohabitation. The judgment effectively places personal relationships on a higher constitutional pedestal than state interference based on religious considerations.

The Uttar Pradesh government had argued during the hearings that live-in couples needed to comply with provisions of the anti-conversion law, requiring prior declaration to the district magistrate in case of religious conversion[3]. However, the court rejected this argument, clarifying that if a person wishes to convert their religion, they must follow the prescribed procedure under the law, but one cannot be forced to convert for the purposes of marriage or living together[6]. The court made clear that interfaith marriage, per se, is not prohibited under the Act[6].

The ruling granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the police for protection if they face threats or harm, and directed that the police provide protection upon verification if allegations are substantiated[4]. The court further directed that all authorities strictly follow the government's preventive, remedial, and punitive measures for protecting couples facing threats on account of consensual relationships[4]. This practical dimension ensures that interfaith couples receive state protection rather than state persecution.

The Allahabad High Court's decision represents a significant judicial affirmation of personal liberty and constitutional rights in India. By clearly delineating between unlawful religious conversion—which remains prohibited—and consensual adult relationships—which are protected—the court has provided crucial clarity on how anti-conversion laws should be applied. The judgment reinforces that the right to choose one's life partner is inviolable, and that the state's role is to protect citizens' fundamental rights rather than enforce restrictions based on religious considerations. This ruling signals that Indian courts remain committed to upholding the constitutional principles of equality, liberty, and human dignity, even as they recognize legitimate state interests in preventing forced religious conversions.