The live-in relationship of an interfaith couple is protected under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, the Allahabad High Court has stated while allowing a plea by a couple who said they faced threats to their life. The court directed the police to examine their complaint if filed.Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that the right to live with a person of his or her choice, irrespective of the religion professed, is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty, and that interference in a personal relationship would constitute a serious encroachment on the freedom of choice of the two individuals.“Right to choose a partner irrespective of caste, creed or religion, is inhered under right to life and personal liberty, an integral part of the Fundamental Right under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India,” the order dated August 25 read.The petitioners told the court that they decided to stay together in an interfaith live-in relationship and claimed that they feared a threat to their lives. It was stated that despite approaching the police, their complaint was not given proper heed.The counsel for the petitioners argued that Article 21 grants the personal choice of whether to marry and be in a live-in relationship. It was further stated that the petitioners are adults and are of legal age to enter into any relationship with protection. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held that the right to protection of life and liberty must be safeguarded regardless of whether the parties are married.‘No FIR against petitioners’The court said that the right to live with a person of one’s choice, irrespective of the religion professed by the partners, is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty. Interference in such a personal relationship, it said, would amount to a serious encroachment on their freedom of choice.It further said that if the law permits even two persons of the same sex to live together peacefully, neither an individual, family nor the state can object to a heterosexual relationship between two adults who have chosen to live together. The decision of an adult to live with a person of their choice, the court said, forms part of the fundamental right to life, personal liberty, dignity and freedom of choice under Article 21.Story continues below this adAlso Read | High time UP revised its ‘19th century’ history sheet rules: Allahabad High Court“The Articles 14 (right to equality) and 15 (protection against discrimination) of the Constitution of India ensure equal treatment of all individuals. It does not discriminate against citizens based on religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth,” it observed.The court noted that no FIR or complaint had been registered against the petitioners and said the court was concerned only with their apprehension of threat to life and liberty.“This Court is not a trial court to find out as to whether any offence has been committed by the petitioners by putting themselves in a live-in relationship. This Court at this stage is only examining the issue of apprehension of the petitioners based on threat to their life and liberty for the reasons/circumstances as narrated in the petition. If the petitioners have not committed any offence, this Court sees no reason as to why their prayer for grant of protection cannot be acceded to,” it remarked.‘Right to life on higher pedestal’The court held that the fundamental right to protection of life and liberty stands on a “much higher pedestal” and must be safeguarded regardless of whether the parties are married, whether the marriage is valid or void, or even in the absence of a marriage altogether. It added that just because the couple was in an interfaith relationship, they could not be deprived of their fundamental rights.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Undertrial need not cut hair grown for religious purposes: Madras High CourtThe court thus allowed the plea and said the couple could approach the police if they faced harm or threats. It further directed the police to examine such a complaint and, if the allegations have substance, act in accordance with law to protect their life, limb and liberty.The court, however, clarified that it had not determined the petitioners’ correct ages and said its order would not shield them from any action or proceedings instituted in accordance with the law.