UP Anti-Conversion Law Does Not Bar Interfaith Relationships: High Court

In Noori And Another v State of UP and 4 Others, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that interfaith marriages and live-in relationships are not barred under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The Court stressed that the law does not criminalise consensual relationships between adults of different faiths.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that courts must see such couples as two adults exercising their free will. He made it clear that religion cannot become a ground to interfere with personal choices made by major individuals.

“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.”

The Court was hearing 12 petitions filed by interfaith couples seeking police protection. Seven Muslim women were living with Hindu men, while five Hindu women were residing with Muslim partners. They alleged threats from family members and private individuals.

The Bench held that live-in relationships are neither prohibited nor punishable under any existing law. It said that Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution guarantee equality, non-discrimination and personal liberty to all citizens.

“Even the interfaith marriage, per se, is not prohibited under the Act, 2021.”

The Court explained that the anti-conversion law applies only when there is an actual conversion carried out through force, fraud, coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation or allurement. Mere companionship or an interfaith relationship does not attract penal provisions.

It further noted that if a person genuinely wishes to convert, the procedure under Sections 8 and 9 of the 2021 Act must be followed. However, no individual can be compelled to change religion for marriage or for living together.

“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.”

The State had argued that compliance with the anti-conversion law was necessary even for live-in couples. It was also submitted that a Muslim cannot reside in a live-in relationship prior to marriage.

However, the amicus curiae contended that none of the petitioners had alleged any attempt at conversion. The Court agreed, noting that no FIR or complaint had been filed claiming forced or fraudulent conversion.

“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.”

Granting relief, the Court permitted the couples to approach the police if they face threats. It directed authorities to examine their age and act according to law to protect their life and liberty.

The Court concluded that safeguarding personal choice is essential to constitutional values and the idea of unity in diversity.