Interfaith Live-in Relationships & Constitutional Liberties

The Allahabad High Court recently granted police protection to 12 interfaith live-in couples, observing that no religious conversion had occurred, and therefore the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 was not attracted. The Court emphasised that adults voluntarily cohabiting cannot be deprived of their life, liberty, and privacy.

This judgment is highly relevant for GS-II (Polity & Governance), GS-IV (Ethics), Essay, and even Prelims (FR & case law).

🏛️ Constitutional Foundations

1️⃣ Article 21 — Right to Life & Personal Liberty

Expanded judicially to include:

✔ Right to privacy

✔ Right to dignity

✔ Right to choose a partner

✔ Right to cohabit without marriage

Key Principle:

State must protect citizens from threats — including familial/social interference.

2️⃣ Article 14 — Equality Before Law

No discrimination on religious grounds
Interfaith couples entitled to equal protection

3️⃣ Article 19 — Freedoms

Freedom of expression & association
Choice of partner linked to autonomy

4️⃣ Article 25 — Freedom of Religion

Protects voluntary conversion
Anti-conversion laws regulate coercion/fraud, not consensual relationships

⚖️ Court’s Key Observations

✔ Petitioners viewed as adults, not religious identities

✔ Live-in relationship ≠ unlawful

✔ Anti-conversion law applies only when conversion occurs

✔ Even interfaith marriage not prohibited

Critical Line of Reasoning:

Freedom of choice of a major individual is integral to constitutional liberty.

📜 Legal Context: Anti-Conversion Law

Purpose of the Act

Prevent conversions through:

❌ Force

❌ Fraud

❌ Coercion

❌ Misrepresentation

❌ Allurement

Court’s Clarification

✔ No conversion → No offence

✔ Relationship itself not criminal

✔ Procedural requirements irrelevant absent conversion

🧭 Broader Legal Precedents (UPSC Gold)

Case	Principle Established
K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)	Right to Privacy (Art 21)
Shafin Jahan / Hadiya (2018)	Right to choose partner
Navtej Johar (2018)	Consensual adult autonomy
Lata Singh (2006)	Protection of inter-caste/interfaith couples

👥 Adults’ Rights vs Duties to Society

✅ Rights of Adults

✔ Autonomy

✔ Privacy

✔ Choice of partner

✔ Freedom from coercion

⚖️ Do Adults Have Duties?

Article 51A (Fundamental Duties) — though non-justiciable:

✔ Promote harmony

✔ Renounce practices derogatory to dignity

✔ Uphold unity in diversity

UPSC Insight:

Duties guide civic morality but cannot override Fundamental Rights.

🌍 Societal & Cultural Dimensions

Traditional Social Structure

Marriage-centric legitimacy
Family/community approval dominant
Religious endogamy common

Emerging Social Trends

✔ Individualism

✔ Urbanisation

✔ Live-in relationships

✔ Interfaith unions

🔮 Long-Term Social Impact

1️⃣ Strengthening Individual Autonomy

Courts reaffirm:

✔ Personal liberty > societal disapproval

✔ Adults ≠ property of families/community

2️⃣ Redefinition of Social Norms

Gradual normalisation of:

✔ Live-in relationships

✔ Interfaith partnerships

3️⃣ Reduced Scope for Moral Policing

Judicial protection limits:

❌ Harassment

❌ Vigilantism

❌ Familial coercion

4️⃣ Tensions & Backlash

Possible:

⚠ Cultural resistance

⚠ Political debates

⚠ Misuse allegations

⚖️ Governance & Administrative Implications

✔ Police protection responsibilities

✔ Balancing law & liberty

✔ Preventing honour crimes

✔ Sensitisation of law enforcement

🧠 Ethical Dimensions (GS-IV)

Values Involved

✔ Autonomy

✔ Tolerance

✔ Pluralism

✔ Dignity

Ethical Dilemma

Tradition vs Constitutional morality

Exam Phrase:

Constitutional morality must prevail over social morality.

📝 UPSC Mains Angles

GS-II

FR vs State regulation
Judicial activism
Privacy jurisprudence

GS-IV

Individual liberty vs societal norms
Ethical governance

Essay Themes

“Freedom of Choice in a Diverse Society”
“Privacy & Morality”
“Changing Nature of Indian Family”

🎯 Possible UPSC Questions

Prelims MCQ:

Right to choose a partner is primarily protected under:

a) Article 14

b) Article 19

c) Article 21

d) Article 25

✅ Answer: c) Article 21

Mains (GS-II):

Discuss how Indian courts have expanded Article 21 to protect personal relationships.

Mains (GS-IV):

“Constitutional morality may conflict with social morality.” Examine.

🧩 Conclusion

The judgment reinforces a transformative constitutional idea:

Adults’ freedom of choice, dignity, and privacy are non-negotiable

While society evolves gradually, courts continue to anchor governance in:

✔ Liberty

✔ Equality

✔ Pluralism

✔ Rule of Law

Blog Archive

Tuesday, February 24, 2026