# Noori & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1593
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 41127 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/noori-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54182
- **Pages:** 27

## Text

_Characters 0–39,948 of 86,932. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39948 for what follows._

2 All. Noori & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1593
(2026) 2 ILRA 1593
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 41127 of 2025
alongwith other cases

Noori & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
Major interfaith couples residing in live-in-relationship sought police protection due to threat from family
members-State opposed citing violation of conversion law.

Headnotes
A. Constitution of India,1950-Article 226, 21- Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion
of Religion Act,2021-Personal liberty-Choice of Partner-Live-in-relationship-Interfaith couplePolice Protection-No conversion- No violation of law-Protection granted-Allowed.(Para 25 to 51)
Held
The court ruled that Interfaith live-in relationship between consenting adults are protected under Article 21,
and conversion law is not attracted without actual conversion. Personal autonomy and choice of partner are
fundamental rights. Petitioners entitled to protection. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Kiran Rawat & Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home, Lko & Ors 2023 SCC Online ALL 323,Asha Devi & Anr.
Vs State of U.P. & Ors, Razia & Anr. Vs State of U.P & Ors, Late Singh Vs State of U.P & Anr (2006) 5 SCC
475,, Shafin Jahan Vs Asokan K.M & Ors (2018) 16 SCC 368, Nandkumar & Anr. Vs State of Kerala (2018) 16
SCC 620, Kamini Devi Vs State of U.P. Writ C No. 11108 of 2020, Soni Gerry Vs Gerry Douglas, (2018) 2 SCC
197, Shakti Vahini Vs Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192, KS Puttaswamy Vs Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1,
Baby Aaliya (minor) Vs State of U.P. & Ors, Writ-C No. 6408 of 2025, Mohammad Shahnoor Mansoori Vs State
of Delhi through Commissioner of Police & Ors , W.P. (CRL) No. 2305 of 2025, Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty
& Anr. Vs Union of India, AIR 2023 SC 5823, Mayra @ Vaishnvi Vilas Shirshikar & Anr Vs State of U.P. & Ors
Writ-C No. 14806 of 2021, Akanksha & Anr Vs State of U.P. & Three Ors, Writ-C No 35171 of 2025-referred
to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950
Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021

List of Keywords
Interfaith live-in relationship, Article 21, personal liberty, police protection, conversion law, autonomy, dignity,
fundamental rights, choice of partner.

Case Arising From
 CIVIL JURISDICTION: WRIT-C No.- 41127 of 2025
 Noori & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors
1594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
From the judgment and order dated 23.02.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):-
Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Shlok Jaiswal Uday Bhan Singh
Adv. for Respondent(s):-
C.S.C

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shwetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appeared as Amicus Curiae and
assisted by Sri Yashraj Verma, Sri Dinkar Lal, Sri Sirajuddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners, Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi & Sri Prabhash Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Sri Yogesh Kumar, Sri Pramit Kumar Pal, Sri Suresh Babu, Sri
Arvind Kumar Singh, Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, and Sri Phool Chand, learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents, in all the writ petitions.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful life and liberty and also for a
direction to provide protection.

3. A large number of petitions are being filed in this Court wherein the petitioners have
decided to stay together in an interfaith live-in relationship and they claim that they have an
apprehension of life threat from the private respondents. The Police of concerned Districts have
been approached by them, but no heed was paid, therefore, they have approached this Court by way
of filing these writ petitions. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed that the Police of
their District be directed to provide protection from private respondents as well as other family
members/relatives/associates of the private respondents from causing any harm to the petitioners.

4. Since controversy involved in all the writ petitions is similar, hence they are being decided
by a common judgment.

5. This Court, taking note of the involvement of the important issue in the matter, requested
Mr. Shwetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, to assist the Court, as amicus curiae, which
was accepted by the learned Senior Counsel and he argued the matter with the assistance of learned
counsels named above.

6. Learned Senior Counsel argued that Article 21 of the Constitution of India grants the
personal choice of whether to marry or not and be in a live-in relationship. A major person has a
right to marry a person of his/her choice or to live with his/her partner. They have a right to live out
of the wedlock.

7. The learned Senior Counsel citing several judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of the
High Courts, stated that a live-in relationship between consenting adults of heterogenic sex does
not amount to any offence. It is also submitted that Article 14 of the Constitution of India
guarantees equal protection of law within the territory of India and Article 21 protects the right to
2 All. Noori & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1595
life and personal liberty. In these cases, the petitioners, claimed to be in an interfaith live-in
relationship, have attained the age of majority which is a legal age to enter into any relationship
with protection, according to their prayer.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioners
are interfaith couples and they have not complied with the provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the
Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act, 2021"). No application for conversion has been moved though the Act came into force on
27.11.2020. It is also submitted that the act of the petitioners is unlawful and illegal and the same
cannot be protected in view of Section 3 and 5 of the Act, 2021. It is further submitted that the
apprehensions of the petitioners are vague, speculative and unsupported by any contemporaneous
complaint to local police authorities. There is no real and immediate threat to the life or liberty of
the petitioners. No specific time, date or incident has been mentioned in the application allegedly
moved before the police authorities. The State's obligations to protect arises only when no unlawful
act has been done by the petitioners and the protection by the police authorities may be granted
only when there exists a credible and immediate threat.

9. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the case laws
relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners will not come to the aid of the
petitioners since these judgments were passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court prior to the promulgation
of the Act, 2021, which came into force on 27.11.2020.

10. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has relied upon judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Kiran Rawat and Another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy.
Home, Lko and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online ALL 323, to contend that a Muslim cannot
reside in a live-in relationship as per their personal laws. He further relied upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Asha Devi and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others,
passed in Writ C No. 18743 of 2020, and opposed the petition.

11. In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to the private
respondents and the petition is being disposed of finally with the consent of the learned counsels
appearing for the parties.

12. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that they are major and are
residing in a live-in relationship and this particular fact has not been disputed by the learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. The petitioners belong to different
religions. This Court is dealing with 12 writ petitions, wherein 7 girls are Muslims and they are
residing with Hindu boys, whereas five girls are Hindu and they are residing with Muslim boys. It
is further submitted that in all the petitions, it is stated that the petitioners fell in love with each
other and they have decided to reside in a live-in relationship, but the private respondents are
interfering in their peaceful living. The petitioners approached the police authorities, but no action
was taken by the police authorities, therefore, they preferred the present writ petitions.

13. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment passed
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Razia and Another vs. State of U.P. and
1596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Others, passed in Writ-C No. 27338 of 2023, in which the co-ordinate Bench of this Court relying
upon various judgments, granted protection to the couple who were residing in an interfaith live-in
relationship.

14. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the case of Razia
(supra) also, one of the party was Muslim by faith and the other party was Hindu by religion and in
the identical situation, the Court has granted protection in the case of Razia (supra).

15. Opposing the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., placed reliance upon judgment of
Kiran Rawat (supra) and argued that a Muslim cannot reside in a live-in relationship prior to
his/her marriage.

16. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the law laid down by Supreme
Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2006) 5 SCC 475, to
contend that once a person has attained majority, he/she can live with whomsoever they like and
their choice cannot be interfered with by anyone. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant
part of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh (supra ) for convenience and ready
reference:

"17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In
fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the
nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result
in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the
country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with
violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats
or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a
free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever
he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious
marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the
daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the
person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter- religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the
administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is
a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major,
the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one
who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation,
is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further
stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law. We sometimes hear of `honour'
killings of such persons who undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of their own free will.
There is nothing honourable in such killings, and in fact they are nothing but barbaric and
shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons who deserve harsh
punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism."

17. To contend the freedom of an individual who has attained the age of majority to live with
anyone whom he/she likes, reliance is also placed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners
2 All. Noori & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1597
on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. and Ors.
reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized due importance to the
right of choice of an adult person, which the Constitution accords to an adult person. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that right to marry a person of own choice is integral part of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. There is a complete freedom to choose life partner of any faith, belief,
religion, caste etc. Neither State, nor law, nor society can dictate the choice of partner. The right
cannot be taken away except through law which is substantially and procedurally fair, just and
reasonable. The relevant paragraphs of Shafin Jahan (supra) are reproduced as under:

"26. In Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2011) 10 SCC 781, the Court
further ruled that the principle of habeas corpus has been incorporated in our constitutional law
and in a democratic republic like India where judges function under a written Constitution and
which has a chapter of fundamental rights to protect individual liberty, the judges owe a duty to
safeguard the liberty not only of the citizens but also of all persons within the territory of India;
and the same exercise of power can be done in the most effective manner by issuing a writ of
habeas corpus.

27 . Thus, the pivotal purpose of the said writ is to see that no one is deprived of his/her
liberty without sanction of law. It is the primary duty of the State to see that the said right is not
sullied in any manner whatsoever and its sanctity is not affected by any kind of subterfuge. The role
of the Court is to see that the detenue is produced before it, find out about his/her independent
choice and see to it that the person is released from illegal restraint. The issue will be a different
one when the detention is not illegal. What is seminal is to remember that the song of liberty is
sung with sincerity and the choice of an individual is appositely respected and conferred its
esteemed status as the Constitution guarantees. It is so as the expression of choice is a fundamental
right Under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, if the said choice does not transgress any valid
legal framework. Once that aspect is clear, the enquiry and determination have to come to an end.

52. It is obligatory to state here that expression of choice in accord with law is
acceptance of individual identity. Curtailment of that expression and the ultimate action emanating
therefrom on the conceptual structuralism of obeisance to the societal will destroy the
individualistic entity of a person. The social values and morals have their space but they are not
above the constitutionally guaranteed freedom. The said freedom is both a constitutional and a
human right. Deprivation of that freedom which is ingrained in choice on the plea of faith is
impermissible. Faith of a person in intrinsic to his/he meaningful existence. To have the freedom of
faith is essential to his/her autonomy; and it strengthens the core norms of the Constitution.
Choosing a faith is the substratum of individuality and sans it, the right of choice becomes a
shadow. It has to be remembered that the realisation of a right is more important than the
conferment of the right. Such actualisation indeed ostracises any kind of societal notoriety and
keeps at bay the patriarchal supremacy. It is so because the individualistic faith and expression of
choice are fundamental for the fructification of the right. Thus, we would like to call it
indispensable preliminary condition.

53 . Non-acceptance of her choice would simply mean creating discomfort to the
constitutional right by a Constitutional Court which is meant to be the protector of fundamental
1598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rights. Such a situation cannot remotely be conceived. The duty of the Court is to uphold the right
and not to abridge the sphere of the right unless there is a valid authority of law. Sans lawful
sanction, the centripodal value of liberty should allow an individual to write his/her script. The
individual signature is the insignia of the concept.

54. In the case at hand, the father in his own stand and perception may feel that there has
been enormous transgression of his right to protect the interest of his daughter but his view point
or position cannot be allowed to curtail the fundamental rights of his daughter who, out of her own
volition, married the Appellant. Therefore, the High Court has completely erred by taking upon
itself the burden of annulling the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 9 when
both stood embedded to their vow of matrimony."

18. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Nandkumar and another Vs. State of Kerala reported at (2018)
16 SCC 620 to contend that the live in relationship is now recognized by the legislature itself and it
has found its place under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

19. Reliance is also placed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner on the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamini Devi Vs. State of U.P Writ C No. 11108
of 2020, to contend that the live in relationship is no offence and the petitioners, if they are major,
are legally entitled to live in live-in relationship.

20. In reply, it is stated by the learned counsel for the State that the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel/amicus curiae, though grant the
fundamental right of choice of an adult person while marrying within the same religion, however,
these judgments will not come to the aid of the petitioners after the promulgation of the Act, 2021,
which came into force on 27.11.2020. All the aforementioned judgments relied upon by the learned
Senior Counsel were passed prior to the promulgation of the Act, 2021 and in none of the
judgment, the Act of 2021 was considered.

21. According to the State Counsel, as per the Act, 2021, one cannot freely move with another
except in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 8 and 9 of the Act, 2021, or by
marriage under the Special Marriage Act. In the present cases, none of the petitioners claimed that
they have moved application under Section 8 and 9 of the Act, 2021, rather they stated that they are
residing in a live-in relationship. No one claimed that any application under the Special Marriage
Act was preferred by them. Therefore, they have violated the law and no relief can be granted to a
wrong doer.

22. In rebuttal, it is stated by learned Senior Counsel/amicus curiae, that the petitioners herein
are only living in a relationship and as such, compliance of Section 8 and 9 of the Act, 2021, is not
necessary for the petitioners. If a person intends to convert his/her religion, only then he/she will
give a declaration in terms of Section 8 and 9 of the Act, 2021.

23. The above argument was strongly opposed by the learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State of U.P. and he referred Section 3 and 5 of the Act, 2021 and stated that for the
2 All. Noori & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1599
purpose of living together in a live-in relationship, the Act, 2021, will apply and whoever
contravenes the provisions of Section 3, will be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than three years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which
shall not be less than Rs. 50,000/-. Reference may be made to Section 3 and 5 of the Act, 2021
which run as under:

"Section 3. Prohibition of conversion from one religion to another religion by
misrepresenta-tion, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement.-

(1) No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any other
person from one religion to another by use or practice of misrepresentation, force, undue influence,
coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means. No person shall abet, convince or conspire such
conversion.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-section conversion by solemnization of
marriage or relationship in the nature of marriage on account of factors enumerated in this subsection shall be deemed included.

(2) If any person re-converts to his immediate previous religion, the same shall not be
deemed to be a conversion under this Act.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-section immediate previous religion means the
religion in which the person had faith, belief or was practiced by the person voluntarily and freely.

Section 5. Punishment for contravention of provisions of section 3.-(1) Whoever
contravenes the provisions of section 3 shall, without prejudice to any civil liability, be punished
with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to ten
years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees:

Provided that whoever contravenes the provisions of section 3 in respect of a minor, a
disabled or mentally challenged person, a soman or a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes or
the Scheduled Tribes, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than five years but which may extend to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine which
shall not be less than one lakh rupees:

Provided further that whoever contravenes the provisions of section 3 in respect of mass
conversion of religion shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than seven years but which may extend to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine which
shall not be less than one lakh rupees.

(2) Whoever receives money from any foreign or illegal institutions in connection with
unlawful religious conversion shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than seven years but which may extend to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine
which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees.
1600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(3) Wherever, with the intent to convert, puts any person in fear of his life or property,
assaults or uses force or marries or promises to marry o induces or conspires for the same, or
traffics a minor, a woman or a person by enticing them or otherwise selling them, or abets,
attempts or conspires in this behalf, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not less than twenty years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean
imprisonment for the remainder of that person?s natual life, and shall also be liable to fine :

Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and
rehabilitation of the victim :

Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.

(4) The Court shall also approve appropriate compensation payable by the accused to the
victim of the said conversion, which may extend to five lakh rupees, in addition to the fine.

(5) Whoever, having previously been convicted of an offence under this Act, is again
convicted of an offence punishable under this Act, shall, for every such subsequent offence, be
liable to a punishment not exceeding twice the punishment provided in that behalf under this Act."

24. By referring the aforesaid provision, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
further stated that the explanation of Section 3 of the Act, 2021, goes to show that conversion is not
only required for the purpose of marriage, but it is also required in all relationship in the nature of
marriage, therefore, the Act, 2021, will also apply to relationship in the nature of marriage or
staying together in a live-in relationship. None of the petitioners have applied for conversion as per
provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the Act, 2021, hence the relationship of the petitioners cannot be
protected in contraventions of the provisions of law. Such residing of the petitioners in relationship
like marriage cannot get approval by the Court of law.

25. I have heard submissions of both the sides and perused the record.

26. In the case of Kiran Rawat (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has observed that
no recognition can be given to sex outside the marriage in the Muslim Law. The relevant paragraph
no. 21 of the Kiran Rawat (supra) is reproduced hereunder.

"21. However, in Muslim law no recognition can be given to sex outside marriage. "Zina"
which has been defined as any sexual intercourse except that between husband and wife includes
both extramarital sex and premarital sex and is often translated as fornication in English. Such
premarital sex is not permissible in Islam. In fact any sexual, lustful, affectionate acts such as
kissing, touching, staring etc. are "Haram" in Islam before marriage because these are considered
parts of "Zina" which may lead to actual "Zina" itself. The punishment for such offence according
to Quran (chapter 24) is hundred lashes for the unmarried male and female who commit
fornication together with the punishment prescribed by the "Sunnah" for the married male and
female that is stoning to death."
2 All. Noori & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1601

27. In the context of Kiran Rawat's (supra) judgment, there is no provisions in the Indian
Penal Code or any other Act to punish a man or woman with lashes or stoning to death. Therefore,
a person, cannot be punished according to Muslim Law/Islam, as quoted in Kiran Rawat's (supra)
judgment.

28. In the opinion of this Court, for attracting the offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act,
2021, conversion from one religion to another religion is necessary and that conversion should be
by practice of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion or allurement or by any
fraudulent means or by marriage or by relationship in the nature of marriage. Sub-section (1) of
Section 3 mandates that no person shall convert or attempt to convert any other person from one
religion to another religion. "Conversion' has been defined under Section 2(c) of the Act, 2021,
which is reproduced hereunder:

"2(c). "Conversion" means renouncing one's own religion and adopting another
religion."

29. In the present batch of cases, no petitioner claimed that any attempt, in any manner, was
made by other petitioner for conversion of his/her religion. It is only claimed by the petitioners that
they are living together in a live-in relationship and following their religion. Section 4 of the Act,
2021, gives power to any person to lodge F.I.R./complaint relating to the contravention of the
provisions of the Act, 2021. 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. Therefore, it
cannot be said under the facts and circumstances of these cases that any act in contravention of the
provision of the Act, 2021, was made by the petitioners and a punishable offence was done by
them.

30. Even the interfaith marriage, per se, is not prohibited under the Act, 2021. Provision has
also been made under the Act, 2021, and according to which, if a person wishes to change/convert
his or her religion, he/she is expected to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 8 & 9 of the
Act, 2021. But one cannot be forced to convert his or her religion for the purposes of marriage or
for living together in a live-in relationship. For ready reference, Sections 8 & 9 of the Act, 2021,
are reproduced hereunder:

"Section 8. Declaration before conversion of religion and pre-report about conversion
(1) One who desires to convert his/her religion, shall give a declaration in the form prescribed in
Schedule-I at least sixty days in advance, to the District Magistrate or the Additional District
Magistrate specially authorized by the District Magistrate, that he wishes to convert his/her
religion on his/her own and with his/her free consent and without any force, coercion, undue
influence or allurement.

(2) The religious convertor, who performs conversion ceremony for converting any
person of one religion to another religion, shall give one month's advance notice in the form
prescribed in Schedule-II of such conversion, to the District Magistrate or any other officer not
below the rank of Additional District Magistrate appointed for that purpose by the District
Magistrate of the district where such ceremony is proposed to be performed.
1602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(3) The District Magistrate, after receiving the information under sub-section (1) and (2),
shall get an enquiry conducted through police with regard to real intention, purpose and cause of
the proposed religious conversion.

(4) Contravention of sub-section (1) and/or sub-section (2) shall have the effect of
rendering the proposed conversion, illegal and void.

(5) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees ten thousand.

(6) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (2) shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but may extend to five years and
shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees twenty five thousand.

Section 9. Declaration post conversion of religion (1) The converted person shall send a
declaration in the form prescribed in Schedule-III within sixty days of the date of conversion, to the
District Magistrate of the District in which converted person resides ordinarily.

(2) The District Magistrate shall exhibit a copy of the declaration on the notice board of
the office till the date of confirmation.

(3) The said declaration shall contain the requisite details, i.e., the particulars of the
convert such as date of birth, permanent address, and the present place of residence,
father?s/husband?s name, the religion to which the convert originally belonged and the religion to
which he has converted, the date and place of conversion and nature of process gone through for
conversion.

(4) The converted individual shall appear before the District Magistrate within 21 days
from the date of sending/filing the declaration to establish her/his identity and confirm the contents
of the declaration.

(5) The District Magistrate shall record the factum of declaration and confirmation in a
register maintained for this purpose. If any objections are notified, he may simply record them, i.e.,
the name and particulars of objectors and the nature of objection.

(6) Certified copies of declaration, confirmation and the extracts from the register shall
be furnished to the parties, who gave the declaration to his/her authorized legal representative on
his/her request.

(7) The contravention of sub-sections 1 to 4 shall have the effect of rendering the said
conversion illegal and void."

31. This Court does not see the petitioners herein as Hindu and Muslim, rather as two grown
up individuals who out of their own free will and choice are living together peacefully and happily
2 All. Noori & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1603
for a considerable time. The Courts and the Constitutional Courts in particular are enjoined to
uphold the life and liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Right to live with a person of his/her choice, irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic
to right to life and personal liberty. Interference in a personal relationship, would constitute a
serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals. This Court fails to
understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then
neither any individual nor a family nor even State can have objection to hetrosexual relationship of
two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together. Decision of an individual
who is of the age of majority, to live with an individual of his/her choice is strictly a right of an
individual and when this right is infringed it would constitute breach of his/her fundamental right to
life and personal liberty as it includes right to freedom of choice, to choose a partner and right to
live with dignity as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

32. In a more recent decision of a three judge Bench in Soni Gerry v Gerry Douglas, (2018)
2 SCC 197, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a case where the daughter of the appellant and
respondent, who was a major had expressed a desire to reside in Kuwait, where she was pursuing
her education, with her father. This Court observed thus:

"9. She has, without any hesitation, clearly stated that she intends to go back to Kuwait to
pursue her career. In such a situation, we are of the considered opinion that as a major, she is
entitled to exercise her choice and freedom and the Court cannot get into the aspect whether she
has been forced by the father or not. There may be ample reasons on her behalf to go back to her
father in Kuwait, but we are not concerned with her reasons. What she has stated before the Court,
that alone matters and that is the heart of the reasoning for this Court, which keeps all
controversies at bay.

10. It needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the age of majority in an
individual's life has its own significance. She/He is entitled to make her/his choice. The courts
cannot, as long as the choice remains, assume the role of parens patriae. The daughter is entitled
to enjoy her freedom as the law permits and the court should not assume the role of a super
guardian being moved by any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father. We say
so without any reservation."

33. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment manifests that the Apex Court has respected the
liberty of an individual who has attained the age of majority.

34. The Apex Court in Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192 came down
heavily on the perpetrators of "honour killings", which the Court found not only horrific and
barbaric but also interfering with the right to choose a life partner and the dignity of an individual.
The Apex Court held as under:- "
44. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional
sensitivity, protection and the values it stands for. It is the obligation of the Constitutional Courts
as the sentinel on qui vive to zealously guard the right to liberty of an individual as the dignified
existence of an individual has an inseparable association with liberty. Without sustenance of
liberty, subject to constitutionally valid provisions of law, the life of a person is comparable to the
1604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
living dead having to endure cruelty and torture without protest and tolerate imposition of thoughts
and ideas without a voice to dissent or record a disagreement. The fundamental feature of dignified
existence is to assert for dignity that has the spark of divinity and the realization of choice within
the parameters of law without any kind of subjugation. The purpose of laying stress on the concepts
of individual dignity and choice within the framework of liberty is of paramount importance. We
may clearly and emphatically state that life and liberty sans dignity and choice is a phenomenon
that allows hollowness to enter into the constitutional recognition of identity of a person.

(emphasis supplied)

45. The choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of
where there is erosion of choice. True it is, the same is bound by the principle of constitutional
limitation but in the absence of such limitation, none, we mean, no one shall be permitted to
interfere in the fructification of the said choice. If the right to express one's own choice is
obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness. When
two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path; they consummate their relationship;
they feel that it is their goal and they have the right to do so. And it can unequivocally be stated
that they have the right and any infringement of the said right is a constitutional violation... "

35. 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 of the
Constitution of India. The Apex Court in KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
while deciding the issue of right to privacy, held as under:-

298. Privacy of the individual is an essential aspect of dignity. Dignity has both an
intrinsic and instrumental value. As an intrinsic value, human dignity is an entitlement or a
constitutionally protected interest in itself. In its instrumental facet, dignity and freedom are
inseparably inter-twined, each being a facilitative tool to achieve the other. The ability of the
individual to protect a zone of privacy enables the realization of the full value of life and liberty.
Liberty has a broader meaning of which privacy is a subset. All liberties may not be exercised in
privacy. Yet others can be fulfilled only within a private space. Privacy enables the individual to
retain the autonomy of the body and mind. The autonomy of the individual is the ability to make
decisions on vital matters of concern to life. Privacy has not been couched as an independent
fundamental right. But that does not detract from the constitutional protection afforded to it, once
the true nature of privacy and its relationship with those fundamental rights which are expressly
protected is understood. Privacy lies across the spectrum of protected freedoms. The guarantee of
equality is a guarantee against arbitrary state action. It prevents the state from discriminating
between individuals. The destruction by the state of a sanctified personal space whether of the body
or of the mind is violative of the guarantee against arbitrary state action. Privacy of the body
entitles an individual to the integrity of the physical aspects of personhood. The intersection
between one's mental integrity and privacy entitles the individual to freedom of thought, the
freedom to believe in what is right, and the freedom of self-determination. When these guarantees
intersect with gender, they create a private space which protects all those elements which are
crucial to gender identity. The family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral
to the dignity of the individual. Above all, the privacy of the individual recognises an inviolable
2 All.