Allahabad HC Holds That Live-In Relationships Are Not Immoral Under Indian Law: A Constitutional Shield for Modern Unions
- ByAdmin --
- 21 Apr 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a bold and progressive ruling, the Allahabad High Court has declared that live-in relationships between consenting adults are not immoral or illegal under Indian law, and that the police or society cannot interfere in such private arrangements as long as they do not violate any law.
This significant judgment reinforces the constitutional sanctity of personal liberty and individual choice, particularly in the face of rising societal pressure and police harassment targeting interfaith or inter-caste live-in couples in India’s conservative heartlands.
The Case: Interfaith Couple Facing Harassment and Threats
The matter came before the Court after a Muslim woman and a Hindu man, both in their twenties and residing in a small town in Uttar Pradesh, filed a writ petition seeking police protection from their families and local community, who disapproved of their relationship.
The couple was not married but had been cohabiting peacefully for over a year, maintaining separate employment and housing. However, they began facing threats of “moral policing”, intimidation, and pressure to separate. The local police, instead of offering protection, summoned them repeatedly and warned them to “end the immoral relationship.”
Fearing for their safety and privacy, the couple approached the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a directive for police protection and a recognition of their right to live together without interference.
The Court’s Verdict: Privacy, Choice, and Constitutional Morality Come First
Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, delivering the judgment, observed that:
1. Live-in Relationships Are Protected by the Constitution
- Relying on past Supreme Court judgments, including Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006) and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Court reiterated that two consenting adults have the right to live together, even if they are not married.
- The relationship may not conform to “traditional societal norms,” but the Constitution protects liberty—not conformity.
2. Police Must Protect, Not Preach
- The Court strongly criticized the local police for moral interference, noting that their job is law enforcement, not value enforcement.
- Any act of harassment, surveillance, or undue pressure against the couple violates Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
3. Personal Autonomy Includes the Right to Choose a Partner
- Whether through marriage or cohabitation, the right to companionship is an integral part of individual autonomy, protected under Articles 19 and 21.
- The Court rejected the argument that only legally married couples are entitled to protection, stating:
“Law must evolve with time. What was once unconventional cannot be labeled illegal.”
Why This Ruling Matters: Breaking the Chain of Moral Policing
This is not the first time the Allahabad HC has stood up for live-in couples. However, this ruling is especially significant because:
- It comes in the context of growing scrutiny of interfaith relationships, often mischaracterized as “love jihad”
- It sends a clear message to law enforcement authorities to respect personal liberty
- It paves the way for couples living outside traditional marriage structures—especially women—to seek protection under the law
It also aligns with:
- Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, where the Court ruled that even if a man and woman were not of marriageable age, they could cohabit
- The Right to Privacy (Puttaswamy case, 2017), which emphasized that the state cannot interfere in consensual adult relationships unless a specific law is broken
Expert Reactions and Public Response
Feminist legal scholars and human rights advocates have welcomed the ruling.
Advocate Karuna Nundy tweeted:
“Love is not a crime. Autonomy is not immoral. The Court’s ruling restores dignity to those living without fear but within the law.”
However, some religious and conservative groups have criticized the decision, claiming it "encourages moral decay", underscoring the ongoing tug-of-war between constitutional morality and cultural norms.
What It Means Going Forward
The ruling:
- Empowers more couples to seek protection from harassment without the fear of being judged for their personal choices
- Instructs the police to focus on threats, not relationships
- Reinforces that morality is not enforceable by the state unless it translates into public disorder or criminality
The Court also directed the UP Police Department to issue standing orders reiterating the legal position on live-in relationships, to avoid future harassment.
Morality May Be Social, But Rights Are Constitutional
In a society where personal choices are often judged through the lens of tradition, this ruling is a timely reminder that what is moral may vary—but what is legal must remain firm.
The Allahabad High Court has once again stood as a guardian of liberty, reminding all that love, choice, and cohabitation—when consensual and legal—are not crimes.
Because in the eyes of the Constitution, you don’t need a wedding band to deserve dignity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments