The Allahabad High Court on Monday (February 23) held that interfaith couples living together are entitled to police protection and are not barred from cohabiting by the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.Justice Vivek Kumar Singh allowed a batch of 12 writ petitions filed by interfaith couples – seven involving Muslim women and Hindu men, and the rest, Hindu women and Muslim men – that had sought protection from harassment by their families.The judgment is the latest ruling in the ongoing, often contradictory, legal discourse within the High Court regarding the rights of interfaith unmarried live-in couples in Uttar Pradesh.Question of lawThe primary legal question before the court was whether an interfaith live-in relationship constitutes an offence under the 2021 Act if the partners have not applied for conversion under the Act.The government counsel argued that the Act applies not just to marriage but to relationships “in the nature of marriage”, according to the explanation to Section 3(1) of the Act. Consequently, couples that had not followed the mandatory procedure for conversion – which involves a declaration before the district magistrate – were not entitled to state protection since their “act… is unlawful and illegal”.The state relied on a 2023 Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Kiran Rawat vs State of UP, in which the court had denied protection to an unmarried interfaith couple living together. The court had stated that under Muslim personal law, sexual relationships outside marriage are impermissible and punishable.The court’s reasoningJustice Singh rejected the state’s objections by distinguishing the scope of the 2021 Act from the fundamental rights of adults to choose their partners.Story continues below this adAlso in Explained | WhatsApp complies with directions on data sharing: A timeline of the case and privacy concerns it raisedThe court examined Section 3 of the Act, which prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, allurement, or marriage. Justice Singh noted that for the Act to apply, “conversion from one religion to another religion is necessary.”In the cases before him, the petitioners explicitly stated they were living together without converting. The court pointed out that Section 4 of the Act empowers an aggrieved person to lodge a first information report for an offence under the Act. However, in these cases, “no F.I.R. or complaint has been lodged against any person that religion of one petitioner was converted or attempted to be converted,” it was noted.The court held that being in a live-in relationship without conversion does not contravene the Act. It went on to reason that “[e]ven the interfaith marriage, per se, is not prohibited under the Act” because the Act prescribes a procedure for converting one’s religion before marrying.Addressing the state’s reliance on the Kiran Rawat judgment regarding Muslim law, Justice Singh acknowledged that Kiran Rawat discussed the punishment for sexual relations outside marriage under Islamic law. He noted that “a person cannot be punished according to Muslim Law/Islam” since it has no standing in Indian criminal law.Story continues below this adThe High Court leaned on Supreme Court judgements, including Lata Singh vs. State of UP from 2006 and Shafin Jahan vs Asokan K M from 2018, which established that an adult’s right to choose a partner is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty.Justice Singh wrote, “To disregard the choice of a person who is of the age of majority would not only be antithetic to the freedom of choice of a grown-up individual but would also be a threat to the concept of unity in diversity.”The court also invoked a state government order dated August 31, 2019, that was issued after the High Court nudged earlier that year, to give effect to the Supreme Court’s directions from 2018 in the Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India verdict to combat “honour killings”.This order mandates that the district magistrate or superintendent of police “must deal with the complaint regarding threats administered to such a couple/family with utmost sensitivity” and must provide “safe houses” and security to couples, regardless of their marital status, who face threats from their families or khap panchayats. Justice Singh directed the police to strictly comply with this order.Divergent rulingsStory continues below this adWhile Justice Singh’s ruling offers relief to the petitioners, it stands in contrast to several other recent rulings by different benches of the Allahabad High Court, creating a complex legal landscape.Also Read | Can the ED attach ancestral property? The legal debate over ‘equivalent value’For instance, in Shilpa Alias Shikha vs. State of UP in 2024, a division bench dismissed a petition to quash an FIR against an interfaith couple. That bench accepted the argument that the couple had not applied for conversion under the 2021 Act, holding that the Act’s procedure for conversion is mandatory even for live-in relationships.Conversely, other benches have taken a stance similar to Justice Singh. In Baby Aaliya vs. State of UP in 2025, another division bench granted protection to an interfaith couple, stating that “parents, who are major, are entitled to live together, even if they have not undergone marriage.” Earlier, in Kamini Devi vs. State of UP in 2020, another division bench had upheld the legitimacy of live-in relationships.In 2024, the Supreme Court, in Devu G Nair vs. State of Kerala, issued guidelines stating that courts must grant “ad-interim measure, such as immediately granting police protection” to intimate partners – including inter-faith couples – facing threats “before establishing the threshold requirement of being at grave risk of violence and abuse,” emphasising that such protection is vital to maintain their “privacy and dignity”.Story continues below this adDespite the clarity of Justice Singh’s reasoning, his judgment does not settle the position of law in Uttar Pradesh. Justice Singh delivered his verdict as a single judge. The conflicting judgments in Kiran Rawat and Shilpa were delivered by division benches, which hold higher precedential value than single-judge benches.Until a larger bench of the High Court or the Supreme Court definitively resolves whether the 2021 Act applies to live-in relationships where no conversion is sought, interfaith couples in the state may continue to receive varying judicial outcomes depending on which bench hears their plea.