Interfaith Marriage And Live-In Relationships: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Non-Application Of U.P. Anti-Conversion Law

Posted On - 20 April, 2026 • By - Jidesh Kumar

Introduction

The Indian Constitution guarantees personal liberty, including the freedom to choose one’s partner. In recent years, several states have enacted anti-conversion laws aimed at preventing forced or fraudulent religious conversions. The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (“U.P. Anti-Conversion Act”) is one such statute, criminalising conversions effected through misrepresentation, coercion, undue influence, or fraud, and prescribing procedural requirements for lawful conversion.

Concerns have, however, been raised regarding the potential misuse of such laws to interfere with consensual interfaith relationships. In Noori and Another v. State of U.P.1 (order dated 23 February 2026), the Allahabad High Court clarified that the Act does not prohibit interfaith live-in relationships or marriages where no conversion is involved. The Court further affirmed that fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 prevail over unwarranted interference by the State or private actors.

This article examines the statutory framework, judicial reasoning, and broader constitutional implications of the ruling.

Statutory And Constitutional Framework

Constitutional Protections

Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution guarantee equality before law, prohibit discrimination, and protect life and personal liberty. Judicial interpretation has consistently expanded Article 21 to include decisional autonomy, encompassing the right of consenting adults to choose their partners and cohabit without interference. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this principle:

  • Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006): Affirmed the right to marry a person of one’s choice.
  • Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018): Recognised the autonomy of an adult woman in matters of faith and marriage.
  • S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)2: Held that live-in relationships between consenting adults are not unlawful.
  • Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)3: Recognised relationships “in the nature of marriage” for limited statutory protection.

These precedents establish that moral or societal disapproval cannot override constitutional freedoms.

The U.P. Anti-Conversion Act, 2021

The Act is aimed at prohibiting unlawful religious conversions. Key provisions include:

  • Section 3: Prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, or fraud.
  • Sections 8 and 9: Require prior declaration and post-conversion intimation to authorities in cases of voluntary conversion.
  • Explanation to Section 3: Clarifies that conversion for the sole purpose of marriage, or marriage undertaken for unlawful conversion, falls within the mischief of the provision.

Importantly, the statute targets conversion, not interfaith relationships per se.

The Allahabad High Court Ruling

Facts

Interfaith couples approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking protection of their life and liberty. They contended that, despite being consenting adults living together without any conversion, they faced harassment from family members and societal actors.

The State opposed the petitions, arguing that the couples had not complied with Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and that the statutory scheme extended to interfaith relationships, including live-in arrangements.

Issues

  • Whether the U.P. Anti-Conversion Act applies to interfaith relationships or live-in arrangements in the absence of conversion.
  • Whether consenting adults are entitled to police protection irrespective of compliance with conversion-related provisions.
  • Whether failure to follow procedural requirements under the Act disentitles such couples from protection.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

  • Non-Application of the Act to Consensual Relationships: The Court held that the U.P. Anti-Conversion Act does not apply where no conversion has taken place or is intended. The statutory requirements under Sections 8 and 9 are triggered only when an individual seeks to convert; mere cohabitation or an interfaith relationship does not attract the Act.
  • The Court interpreted the Explanation to Section 3 narrowly, clarifying that it aims to prevent fraudulent or coercive conversions under the guise of marriage, and not to criminalise genuine, consensual relationships.
  • Primacy of Personal Liberty: The Court reaffirmed that the right to choose a partner and cohabit flows directly from Article 21. Any interference whether by the State or private individuals constitutes an infringement of constitutional liberty.
  • It emphasised that interfaith relationships, including live-in arrangements, fall within the protected sphere of individual autonomy, and cannot be subjected to moral policing.

Right to Protection

The Court held that consenting adults are entitled to seek protection of their life and liberty under Article 226, irrespective of their marital status or religious differences.

Failure to comply with conversion-related provisions is irrelevant where no conversion is involved. The State has a positive obligation to ensure protection against threats or harassment.

Operative Directions

The Court directed that:

  • Petitioners may approach the police if they apprehend threats to their safety.
  • Police authorities, upon verifying that the individuals are adults acting voluntarily, must ensure adequate protection.
  • Authorities must refrain from harassing consenting adult couples on the basis of interfaith association.
  • Any allegations of coercive conversion must be dealt with strictly in accordance with law, but cannot be presumed.

Place In Existing Jurisprudence

This ruling aligns with and reinforces established constitutional jurisprudence protecting personal autonomy.

It departs from certain earlier High Court observations that tended to expand the scope of the Act to interfaith relationships absent conversion. Instead, the present judgment adopts a constitutionally consistent and purposive interpretation, limiting the Act’s application to its intended objective—preventing unlawful conversion.

By relying on precedents such as Lata Singh4 and Shafin Jahan5, the Court situates the issue firmly within the framework of individual liberty and dignity, ensuring that anti-conversion laws are not misused as tools of social control.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s ruling provides crucial clarity on the scope of the U.P. Anti-Conversion Act, affirming that it does not criminalise interfaith relationships or live-in arrangements in the absence of conversion.

The judgment highlights that:

  • Personal autonomy and choice of partner are constitutionally protected;
  • Anti-conversion laws are limited to coercive or fraudulent conversions; and
  • The State bears a positive duty to protect consenting adults from harassment.

By harmonising statutory interpretation with constitutional guarantees, the Court has drawn clear boundaries against the misuse of anti-conversion laws and reinforced the primacy of individual liberty in intimate relationships.

  1. Noori & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2026 ↩︎
  2. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr. Citation: (2010) 5 SCC 600 ↩︎
  3. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755 ↩︎
  4. Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 475, AIR 2006 SC 2522 ↩︎
  5. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors. (Hadiya Case) (2018) 16 SCC 368 ↩︎