The Allahabad High Court has recently delivered a significant ruling, rejecting the plea of a Hindu-Muslim couple seeking protection for their life and liberty, while emphasising that the Uttar Pradesh Conversion Law extends its purview to live-in relationships as well.
Justice Renu Agarwal, presiding over the case, declined to grant protection to a Hindu man and a Muslim woman who had solemnised their marriage earlier this year under Arya Samaj customs, without undergoing any religious conversion. The court emphasised that interfaith couples, even in live-in relationships, are obligated to adhere to the provisions outlined in the anti-conversion law.
The court’s decision, dated March 5, underscores the relevance of Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, which prohibits any individual from attempting to convert another person from one religion to another through various means, including marriage.
In the case under consideration, a 24-year-old Muslim woman and a 23-year-old Hindu man tied the knot on January 1, with their marriage registration application still pending. Fearing for their safety and liberty, they sought police protection, which was denied by the state authorities on grounds that the couple had not undergone religious conversion. It was also contended that according to Arya Samaj rites under the Hindu Marriage Act, a Muslim woman cannot marry a Hindu man.
While acknowledging the absence of any dispute regarding the couple’s relationship, as their parents had not lodged any police complaints, the court dismissed their plea for protection, citing their failure to register a religious conversion. The court highlighted the statutory mandate of the 2021 anti-conversion law, emphasising that religious conversion is mandated not only in cases of interfaith marriages but also in relationships resembling marriages.
“In view of the discussions as above, it is not considered desirable that the relationship of the petitioners be protected in contravention of the statutory provisions of law passed by the legislature,” the court remarked.
Furthermore, the court asserted that individuals’ personal liberty should not be encroached upon, emphasising the principle of consenting adult relationships irrespective of caste, religion, or lineage.
“In the relationship of marriage or in the nature of live-in-relationship, there must be two consenting adults human beings. The concept of gotra, caste, and religion is left a way back,” the court asserted in its order.
