# U.O.I. & Anr v. Central Information Commission New Delhi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1584
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-26
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 39694 of 2009
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-o-i-anr-v-central-information-commission-new-delhi-ors-54181
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

1584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reasoned findings. Such conduct may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias or pre-judgment, thereby
offending the principles of natural justice. Fairness, and due consideration of evidence are indispensable
before any punitive or consequential action is taken.

33. Further, the order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Supreme Court in Shailesh Kumar Yadav vs
Union of India and Others, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10430 of 2009, demonstrates that there is no
allegation or observation for deliberate act or omission on the part of the petitioner, and therefore the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 are not justified to impose penalty on the petitioner. Similar order is being passed
against petitioner by same respondent officer in its order dated 19.03.2007 impugned in the present case and,
therefore, the rational of the Supreme Court?s order in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10430 of 2009
applies to this case as well and the impugned penalty order is not justified.

34. We are of the considered view that Section 20 of the RTI Act confers power to impose a penalty on
officers who deliberately obstruct or delay the supply of information, however, the exercise of this power
must be reasoned, proportionate, and preceded by a fair enquiry. Issuing the maximum penalty in tandem
with a recommendation for Government action within a negligible time gap suggests undue haste and raises
concerns of arbitrariness. While the Commission is entrusted with enforcement, it must ensure that its
decisions are grounded in careful consideration of facts, statutory limits, and procedural fairness. The
imposition of penalty and related recommendations must not appear rushed, prejudged, or compromise the
statutory safeguards and the rule of law.

35. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to the statutory scheme under Section 20 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, the enquiry report of the Chief Passport Officer, and the circumstances demonstrating
bias and pre-determined opinion on the part of respondent no. 2, this Court is satisfied that order dated
08.02.2007 and order dated 19.03.2007 passed by the Information Commissioner, Central Information
Commission were unjustified, arbitrary, and contrary to law. Consequently, both the impugned orders dated
08.02.2007 and 19.03.2007 are quashed.

36. Thus this writ petition stands allowed as above with no order as to cost.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1584
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

Writ C No. 39694 of 2009

U.O.I. & Anr. ...Petitioner
Versus
Central Information Commission New Delhi & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
2 All. U.O.I. & Anr. Vs. Central Information Commission New Delhi & Ors.
1585
The matter pertains to a challenge by the Union of India against CIC(Central Information Commission) orders
directing the disclosure of marks and photocopies of answer sheets for a departmental examination under the
RTI Act.

Headnotes
Civil law-Constitution of India,1950-Article 226-Right to Information Act,2005-Sections 8(1)(j)
& 11-Disclosure of candidate marks-Public activity vs. Private information-Marks obtained by
participants in a competitive public examination are not "confidential private information" and
must be disclosed as they relate to a public activity -There is no vested right for an applicant to
obtain physical photocopies of another candidate's evaluated answer book, providing marks and
allowing a perusal of the records is sufficient to satisfy the mandate of the Act-Thus, the orders
of the Information Commission directing the supply of photocopies of third party answer sheets
are liable to be quashed-Allowed partly.(Para 12 to 23)
Held
The court held that marks obtained by candidates in a public examination do not constitute "personal
information" under section 8(1(j) of the RTI Act and must be disclosed to ensure transparency. While a
candidate may peruse the answer sheets of others, there is no vested right to obtain photocopies of another
candidate's evaluated scripts. The examining body does not share a fiduciary relationship with the examiner,
but it does owe a duty to the examinee to maintain the confidentiality of their specific answer book against
third parties. Consequently, the disclosure of marks is considered sufficient information to satisfy the mandate
of the Act. The CIC orders were quashed to the extent they directed the supply of photocopies of third party
answer sheets. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012, Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs Central Information
Commissioner & Ors (2013 (1) SCC 212, Dr. Naresh Trehan & 5 Ors Vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta , 2014 SCC
OnLine Del 6600, Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (2011) 8 SCC
497-referred to.

List of Acts
Right to Information Act,2005
Constitution of India,1950

List of Keywords
Disclosure of marks, Third party information, Personal information, Public Activity, Transparency, Public
interest, Answer sheets, Fiduciary relationship, Accountability.

Case Arising from
CIVIL JURISDICTION: WRIT-C No.- 39694 of 2009
Union of India Thru G.M. Diesel Locomotive & Anr Vs. Central Information Commission New Delhi
& Ors
From the judgment and order dated 26.02.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Adv.s for Petitioner(s):-
 Krishna Ji Shukla, Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Adv. for Respondent(s):-
Ashish Kumar Srivastava
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.
&
Hon'ble Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.)
1586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Sri Krishna Ji Shukla, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and learned
panel counsel for the Union of India.

2. Petitioners, Union of India and Public Information Officer, Diesel Locomotive Works,
Varanasi are aggrieved by the two orders passed by Central Information Commission dated
13.05.2009 and the order dated 04.06.2009 dismissing the review petition.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that one Santosh Kumar, Office Superintendent-II, who
had appeared in the written test held by the respondent Railways for the purpose of selection on the
post of Legal Assistant, made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short
?Act, 2005?) to the Information Officer, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi asking for marks
obtained by three candidates, himself, Manish Kumar Singh and Gorakh Sharma and photostat
copies of their answer sheets. This application was made on 10.10.2008 in response to which the
Senior Personnel Officer acting as nodal officer, Public Information supplied copy of the question
paper demanded for,but in so far as the photocopies of the answer sheets was demanded, it was
refused. However, the said Santosh Kumar who is respondent no. 3 here in this petition, was
permitted to peruse the answer sheet on any working day. The information as to marks was also not
disclosed. He filed an appeal against the order before the appellate authority on 23.10.2008 and the
appellate authority, namely the Central Information Commission, New Delhi under its order dated
13.05.2009 directed for supplying the photocopies of answer sheets demanded by the appellant for
Law Assistant Exams held on 30.07.2004. Aggrieved of this order, though the petitioners revealed
the marks obtained by the three candidates to Sri Santosh Kumar vide letter dated 28.05.2009 but
instead of supplying the photocopies of answer sheets, filed a review application taking plea that in
the light of Full Bench decision of the Central Information Commission itself, such an information
could be declined under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, 2005.

4. However, the review petition was dismissed vide order dated 04.06.2009 on the ground that
Indian Railways would fall under the category of Public Authority whose main action is not to
conduct examinations, but is to conduct examination to fill up the posts and, therefore, answer
sheets could have been supplied. The reviewing authority referred para 40 of the Full Bench
judgment in which disposal of answer sheets was held to be not a general rule but each case will
have to be examined individually.

5. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the judgment of Full
Bench of the Commission has not been appreciated properly by the appellate/ reviewing authority
otherwise it would not have insisted for the photocopies of the answer sheets.

6. Per contra it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that there is no manifest
error in the judgment of the Central Information Commission both initially passed in appeal and
subsequently dismissing the review petition and, therefore, petition is devoid of merits. However,
learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute that the marks of three candidates sought for
in the information have been disclosed.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, in
order to appreciate the legal arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the issue of giving
2 All. U.O.I. & Anr. Vs. Central Information Commission New Delhi & Ors.
1587
information regarding answers obtained in the answer sheet by the candidate in an open
competition and then supplying the copies of the answer sheets.

8. It is true that if a candidate seeks an information about the other candidate?s marks, the it
becomes a third party information and therefore, Rule 11 of Act, 2005 gets attracted but the
information must be such in nature that if disclosed, it would cause any damage in terms of privacy
of third party.

9. In order to appreciate the legal argument advanced, first we reproduce Section 8(1)(j) of
Act, 2005 which runs as under:

"(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the
privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State
Legislature shall not be denied to any person."

10. From the reading of the aforesaid provisions, the intendment of legislature can be drawn to
the effect that a personal information and disclosure thereof which has no relation to any public
interest or to any public activity, such an information may not be given or the information which
may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual, that may also not be given. So the
authority will ensure that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. The
proviso further provides that an information which cannot be denied to Parliament or State
Legislature shall also not be denied to any person. Thus, in substance, any information that does not
invade the privacy of any individual may be withheld and the authority may not be placed under
obligation to give this information, but otherwise, if an information can be given looking to larger
public interest or where public activity may be involved, then such information shall be given.
Section 11 speaks of an obligation in the matter of 3rd party information. Relevant provisions as
contained under Section 11 are reproduced hereunder:

"11. Third party information. -- (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record,
or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third
party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the
receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the
Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends
to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a
submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such
submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of
information:
1588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by
law,disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any
possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.

(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any
information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt
of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after
receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make
representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the
information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third
party.

(4) A notice given under sub-section (3)shall include a statement that the third party to
whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision."

(emphasis added)

11. From the bare reading of aforesaid provisions it goes clear that sufficient safeguards have
been provided in the event any third party information is sought and in such circumstances, the
authority, which is under the obligation to give information shall be giving notice to that third party
to give its reply before the information is given. The main threat is on the confidentiality of
information on the principle of right to privacy.

12. In a matter before the Supreme Court where the Central Information Commission had
passed an order on 18.06.2009 against which an SLP was filed before the Supreme Court, the issue
raised was whether the personal information could have been given or not particularly when the
disclosure of which had no relationship with any public activity or public interest. Paragraph nos.
12, 13, 14 & 15 of the judgment in the matter of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012,
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Others reported in
(2013 (1) SCC 212 is reproduced hereunder:

"12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by
the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders
of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of
Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily
a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the
service rules which fall under the expression ?personal information?, the disclosure of which has
no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which
would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the
Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate
Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,
2 All. U.O.I. & Anr. Vs. Central Information Commission New Delhi & Ors.
1589
appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of
right.

13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal
information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act,
unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State
Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such information.

14. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking
information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the
individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

15. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing
that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not
inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed."

(emphasis added)

13. From the above quoted paragraphs of the judgment, we find that words and expression
?personal information?, ?public intent? and ?public activity? have been considered contextually to
the information sought for. Any information which is specific to a third party would be a personal
information would not be disclosed unless and until it relates to some public activity or where
paramount public interest may outweight consideration of confidentiality in the name of privacy.

14. Public activity may be of varied nature i.e. chants, assembly, meetings etc. such as
programmes with large gatherings men, women and youngsters/ children for social awareness,
meetings organized for programmes and services. So the public activity means an activity relating
to public in general in context to private or individual activity. Where the government or a public
functionary gets involved either as organizer or promoter or an participant and such public
functionary falls within the meaning of authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005,
information relating to such activities becomes accessible to people in public interest.

15. In the case of Dr. Naresh Trehan & 5 others v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, 2014 SCC OnLine
Del 6600 vide paragraph no. 25 the Delhi High Court has held that ?public activity? would denote
activity done for the public and/ or in some manner available for participation by public or some
section of the public.? The said High Court was distinguishing ta return of an individual or his
consent being pursued by him as an information relating to a third party and there being no
participation by public or some section of public, such an information was rightly not disclosed.

16. Here it would be relevant also to refer to the aims and objects for which the RTI was
enacted. The very object in the preamble of the Act refers to an object of promotion of transparency
and accountability in working of every public authority and also to contain corruption and to hold
Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the Government. So the purpose and object
of the Act has been to provide information particularly in public interest affairs and where public
1590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
activity may be involved. Public interest and public activity have not been defined under the Act.
Public interest normally in general could be where the common man?s interest in particular affairs
may be not an individual interest but relating to society or otherwise a class or a group which can
be classified for a limited extent with reference to subject matter for which the information relates
to. Public activity is also in our considered view relates to substantial public interest involved
where public at large gets affected. So in a matter where in general a public interest may be
involved, the information must be given as a realm. The object of the Act is to give information
subject to the riders created under Section 8. So wherever there is public interest involved and there
is absolutely no private information sought for, the endeavour of the authority would be to furnish
the information sought for.

17. In the instant case information required was relating to public examination held by the
respondents for the post of Legal Assistant to which the applicant namely respondent no. 4 was an
applicant like others regarding whose information was sought. The information was sought
regarding marks obtained and we fail to understand as to how this information is private
information or giving of this information to a candidate would amount to invading the privacy of a
candidate. All those who have obtained marks, are open to all ultimately when the merit is
prepared. While it may be true that for a certain period an information may be withheld in a matter
where any investigation or enquiry is pending and marks have not been disclosed, but where no
investigation or enquiry is pending such an information, if sought for under the RTI Act, such
information can always be provided for and must be provided content of examination for a post
may be for a classified section has an element of public activity where disclosure of marks obtained
by candidates shall serve a larger public interest. Marks obtained by a candidate, if information
regarding that is sought by another candidate who has also participated in examination, is not such
a confidential private information which may require even consent of that third party under Section
8. Well of course, if an outsider seeks information, department may take a valid defence of
confidentiality. However, on the question of photocopies of the answer sheets, it may involve
checking of answer sheets, signatures of examiners etc. and therefore, it may not be appropriate to
disclose the names, signatures of the examiners and for that purpose therefore, if the authority
directs the applicants seeking information to peruse the answer sheets, it would suffice the need.
There is no vested right in an applicant to obtain the photocopies of answer sheets of another
candidate, however, he can always ask for the photocopy of his own answer sheet. The purpose of a
candidate seeking information in such competitive examination can be understood as a curiosity to
know how many marks he has obtained and whether his answer sheet is correctly examined or not,
inasmuch as, the perusal of other candidate?s answer sheet can also be helpful to him but in no case
we can compel an authority to supply the photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates. In
matters of providing photocopies of the answer sheets, the local departmental rules can of course,
be framed and there may be cases where Rules may not permit for providing photocopies of answer
sheets and so in that case a candidate can be permitted to peruse the answer sheet. If a candidate is
aggrieved in any manner for wrongful checking of answer sheet or he finds upon perusal that the
answer sheets of other candidates contained wrongly awarded marks, he can always question this in
an appropriate legal proceeding drawn in a court of law, where the court is always vested with the
power to summon the answer sheets and the court has been summoning the answer sheets on case
to case basis. Thus, on the count of furnishing marks of other desired candidates, the judgment and
order passed by the Central Information Commission cannot be faulted with, nor we find any
2 All. U.O.I. & Anr. Vs. Central Information Commission New Delhi & Ors.
1591
manifest error in the order dismissing the review petition, but in the present case we find that the
marks have not been disclosed to respondent no. 4 by the petitioners vide their letter dated
28.05.2009 which is sufficient desired information and therefore, we do not find that any further
information is required to be furnished to the petitioner.

18. We may further observe that an application moved under the Right to Information Act,
2005 seeking relevant information, if furnished, the application stands satisfied. It may not be
necessary always to provide the copies of the official records/ documents which the department
considers would neither be necessary nor, would serve any purpose practically for which the
information has been sought. If sufficient information is there and perusal of records is
permitted, it should suffice the need qua mandate contained under the Act, 2005.

19. We would like here to further refer judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Central
Board of Secondary Education & Anr v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors, (2011) 8 SCC 497 in
which while dealing with the issue of supplying the copies of the answer books, the Court has
observed vide paras 45, 46, 47, 48 & 49 thus:

"45. One of the duties of the fiduciary is to make thorough disclosure of all relevant
facts of all transactions between them to the beneficiary, in a fiduciary relationship. By that
logic, the examining body, if it is in a fiduciary relationship with an examinee, will be liable to
make a full disclosure of the evaluated answer-books to the examinee and at the same time,
owe a duty to the examinee not to disclose the answer-books to anyone else. If A entrusts a
document or an article to B to be processed, on completion of processing, B is not expected to
give the document or article to anyone else but is bound to give the same to A who entrusted
the document or article to B for processing. Therefore, if a relationship of fiduciary and
beneficiary is assumed between the examining body and the examinee with reference to the
answer-book, section 8(1)(e) would operate as an exemption to prevent access to any third
party and will not operate as a bar for the very person who wrote the answer-book, seeking
inspection or disclosure of it.

46. An evaluated answer book of an examinee is a combination of two different
`informations'. The first is the answers written by the examinee and second is the
marks/assessment by the examiner. When an examinee seeks inspection of his evaluated
answer-books or seeks a certified copy of the evaluated answer-book, the information sought
by him is not really the answers he has written in the answer-books (which he already knows),
nor the total marks assigned for the answers (which has been declared). What he really seeks
is the information relating to the break-up of marks, that is, the specific marks assigned to
each of his answers.

47. When an examinee seeks `information' by inspection/certified copies of his answerbooks, he knows the contents thereof being the author thereof. When an examinee is permitted to
examine an answer-book or obtain a certified copy, the examining body is not really giving him
some information which is held by it in trust or confidence, but is only giving him an opportunity to
read what he had written at the time of examination or to have a copy of his answers. Therefore, in
furnishing the copy of an answer-book, there is no question of breach of confidentiality, privacy,
1592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
secrecy or trust. The real issue therefore is not in regard to the answer-book but in regard to the
marks awarded on evaluation of the answer-book. Even here the total marks given to the examinee
in regard to his answer-book are already declared and known to the examinee. What the examinee
actually wants to know is the break-up of marks given to him, that is how many marks were given
by the examiner to each of his answers so that he can assess how is performance has been
evaluated and whether the evaluation is proper as per his hopes and expectations. Therefore, the
test for finding out whether the information is exempted or not, is not in regard to the answer book
but in regard to the evaluation by the examiner.

48. This takes us to the crucial issue of evaluation by the examiner. The examining body
engages or employs hundreds of examiners to do the evaluation of thousands of answer books. The
question is whether the information relating to the `evaluation' (that is assigning of marks) is held
by the examining body in a fiduciary relationship. The examining bodies contend that even if
fiduciary relationship does not exist with reference to the examinee, it exists with reference to the
examiner who evaluates the answer-books. On a careful examination we find that this contention
has no merit.

49. The examining body entrusts the answer-books to an examiner for evaluation and
pays the examiner for his expert service. The work of evaluation and marking the answer-book is
an assignment given by the examining body to the examiner which he discharges for a
consideration. Sometimes, an examiner may assess answer-books, in the course of his employment,
as a part of his duties without any specific or special remuneration. In other words the examining
body is the `principal' and the examiner is the agent entrusted with the work, that is, evaluation of
answer- books. Therefore, the examining body is not in the position of a fiduciary with reference to
the examiner."

20. In the counter affidavit also nothing has been stated about any illegality or irregularly in
checking the answer sheets.

21. Thus, according to us, sufficient information has been given and therefore, providing for
photocopies of answer sheets of the petitioners is not necessary and the original order of
commission to that extent and order in review offering the same deserve to reverse.

22. Writ petition thus, partly succeeds and is allowed to the extent the respondent nos. 1 & 2
are directed to provide photocopies of the answer sheets of the candidates. Since the petitioners
have not raised any irregularity in his answer sheets therefore, information regarding marks is taken
to be sufficient.

23. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The orders passed by
the Central Information Commission and the Information Commission dated 13.05.2009 and
04.06.2009 are hereby quashed to the extent they directed for supply of photocopies of answer
sheets to the respondents.

24. Cost made easy.
----------
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