Twelve Interfaith Couples Asked for Protection. Here Is What the Court Said

Court No. 81, twice

What this section shows: the same argument, in a courtroom with the same number, won in 2024 and lost in 2026. That is the story.

Allahabad. Thursday, 14 March 2024. Court No. 81 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. A woman and a man of different religions, living together, ask the court to stop her family from interfering. The State's standing counsel says they have not filed the declarations required by Sections 8 and 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The judge agrees. After the Act, the order reads, "one cannot freely move with another except in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 8 and 9 of the aforesaid Act, or by marriage under the Special Marriage Act." The petition is dismissed. (Writ-C No. 40168 of 2023, 2024:AHC:46140, paras 8, 17, 27–29)

Monday, 23 February 2026. Court No. 81 again, a different judge. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh has twelve petitions in front of him, heard together, arguments closed on 3 December 2025, judgment held for 82 days. Each petition is a couple of different religions living together. Each says the family is threatening them and the police paid "no heed" (para 3).

The State's lawyer makes the same argument, in almost the same words: "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 … Therefore, they have violated the law and no relief can be granted to a wrong doer" (para 21).

This time the judge does not agree. He reads the Act's dictionary entry for "conversion" — "renouncing one's own religion and adopting another religion" — and finds that nobody in the twelve files has renounced anything (paras 28–29). He allows all twelve petitions.

The live version of this file told only the second half of that story. The 2026 judgment did not end an argument inside the Allahabad High Court; it took one side of it. Division Benches of the same court had written in 2024 and 2025 that the Act "prohibits such live-in relationship", single judges had refused such couples protection in 2023 and 2024, and no larger bench has settled the conflict. This revision reads both lines, quoting each order itself.

We do not name any of the petitioners, in this case or in any of the other couples' cases below. They are private people who told a court their families might harm them. Every High Court order is identified by its writ number and neutral citation. Supreme Court precedents are named by the titles under which they are reported, because that is how the law is cited.

The nine claims, in nine lines

Read these first. Each one is a chapter below, with its own verdict.

• Claim 1, the petitions. Twelve interfaith couples asked for protection from relatives; the State did not dispute they were adults; the court did not decide their ages. (2026:AHC:39447, paras 2–3, 12, 56) Documented.
• Claim 2, the State's case. Living together without a Section 8/9 application, the State said, was "unlawful and illegal", and "no relief can be granted to a wrong doer". (paras 8, 21, 23–24) Documented.
• Claim 3, the definition. The offence needs a conversion, "renouncing one's own religion and adopting another religion", and none was alleged. (paras 28–30) Documented.
• Claim 4, the paperwork. Sections 8 and 9 are for a person who "wishes to change/convert his or her religion", not for a couple. (para 30) Documented.
• Claim 5, the Constitution. Choosing a partner "irrespective of religion" is "intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty". (para 31) Documented.
• Claim 6, the other line. Division Benches of the same court said in 2024 and 2025 that the Act "prohibits such live-in relationship", and single judges refused such couples protection in 2023 and 2024; the 2026 judgment does not name or discuss those orders. (twelve orders) Documented.
• Claim 7, the 2019 order. A 2019 Government Order already obliges UP police to assess threats to couples; the court made it binding. (paras 45–47, 51(iii)) Documented.
• Claim 8, the limits. No strike-down, no age finding, no shield from lawful proceedings, recall open. (paras 51(iv), 56, 57) Documented.
• Claim 9, since February 2026. Followed in at least eight later orders; the Supreme Court has called the Act's procedure "very onerous" without deciding its validity; the challenge awaits a three-judge bench. (2025 INSC 1249; later orders) Documented, the 2026 Supreme Court listing reported.

The words you need, in plain language

What this section shows: the whole case turns on four definitions. Learn them here and nothing below will confuse you.

Writ petition. A direct request to a High Court to protect a fundamental right. These were "Writ-C" petitions asking for a mandamus, an order telling an authority to do its duty: here, telling the police to protect the couple (para 2).

Article 21. "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." The Supreme Court has read it to include the freedom to choose a partner.

Articles 14 and 15. Equality before the law, and no discrimination by the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. The judgment reproduces both (para 43).

Live-in relationship. Two adults living together as a couple without marriage. No Indian law makes it an offence for unmarried adults. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 protects a woman in "a relationship in the nature of marriage", which is how the courts first gave such couples a legal name (paras 18, 36).

The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The State's anti-conversion law. It began as an Ordinance promulgated by the Governor on 27 November 2020 and was enacted as an Act on 4 March 2021 (Supreme Court, 2025 INSC 1249, para 40). It was amended in 2024. Its main parts: - Section 2(c): "'Conversion' means renouncing one's own religion and adopting another religion." Keep this one in your pocket. - Section 3(1): no person shall convert or attempt to convert another "by use or practice of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means". Its Explanation: "conversion by solemnization of marriage or relationship in the nature of marriage on account of factors enumerated in this sub-section shall be deemed included." Read the eight words "on account of factors enumerated in this sub-section" twice. The live version of this file left them out. - Section 4: who may file a police complaint. Until 2024: the aggrieved person and relatives by blood, marriage or adoption. Since the 2024 amendment: "any person" (2025 INSC 1249, paras 45–46). - Section 5: the punishment, as amended in 2024 and reproduced in the judgment: three to ten years and a fine of at least ₹50,000; five to fourteen years and at least ₹1 lakh where the person converted is a minor, a woman, a disabled person or from a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; seven to fourteen years for mass conversion; and twenty years to life for anyone who, "with the intent to convert", puts a person in fear, assaults, "marries or promises to marry", or traffics (para 23). The original 2020 text punished the basic offence with one to five years and a fine of at least ₹15,000 (Ordinance, s. 5). - Sections 6 and 7: a marriage done "for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion" is void; offences are cognizable, non-bailable and tried by a Sessions Court, and since 2024 the Public Prosecutor must be heard on bail (2025 INSC 1249, paras 49–50). - Sections 8 and 9: the paperwork for anyone who wants to convert: a declaration to the District Magistrate sixty days ahead, a police enquiry, a post-conversion declaration put on the office notice board, a personal appearance (para 30). - Section 12: the burden of proving that a conversion was lawful lies on the person who caused it (2025 INSC 1249, para 54).

Amicus curiae. "Friend of the court": a senior lawyer asked by the judge to argue the legal question because it matters beyond the people in the room. Here, Senior Advocate Shwetashwa Agarwal (para 5).

Single judge, Division Bench, larger bench. A High Court sits as one judge, two judges (a Division Bench) or three or more. A single judge is bound by a Division Bench of the same court. When benches of equal strength disagree, the proper course is to refer the question to a larger bench. Keep this in mind for Claim 6.

Private respondents. The people the couples said they feared. In these petitions, their own relatives (para 3).

Claim 1: twelve petitions, one shape

What happened. Between them, the twelve petitions asked 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" (para 2). The lead file is Writ-C No. 41127 of 2025. The cover of the judgment lists eleven connected writ petitions, filed in 2025, numbered 35244 to 42295. "Since controversy involved in all the writ petitions is similar, hence they are being decided by a common judgment" (para 4).

How it happened. The court counted them itself: "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" (para 12). Every petition said the couple "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", and that "the petitioners approached the police authorities, but no action was taken" (para 12). The court did not issue notice to the relatives. It disposed of the petitions "finally with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties" (para 11).

Why it matters. The court said this was not one family's quarrel: "A large number of petitions are being filed in this Court" by interfaith couples claiming "an apprehension of life threat" (para 3). That is why it asked a Senior Advocate to argue the law (para 5). One fact was not contested: the couples said "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." (para 12).

What they say in answer. The State did not dispute age or cohabitation. It said the threats were "vague, speculative and unsupported by any contemporaneous complaint to local police authorities", that "No specific time, date or incident has been mentioned", and that the State's duty to protect "arises only when no unlawful act has been done by the petitioners" and only "when there exists a credible and immediate threat" (para 8).

Evidence. 1. The signed judgment of 23 February 2026, 40 pages, neutral citation 2026:AHC:39447, reserved 3 December 2025, Court No. 81, read in full (copy published by Verdictum; the court's eLegalix copy is listed in the Source Library). 2. Paragraphs 2–4, 8, 11–12.

Verdict on this case. Documented. Twelve couples, one question, one judgment. The ages were asserted and not disputed, but the court said in terms that it "has not adjudicated the correct age of the petitioners" (para 56). The live version of this file called them "all adults" as a fact. The record says: adults by their own account, not contested, not decided.

Claim 2: the State's case, in its own words

What happened. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel, the State's senior lawyer in the room, argued that every one of the twelve couples was committing an offence by living together.

How it happened. The argument came in four steps, all recorded in the judgment.

First, the paperwork. The couples "have not complied with the provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion 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" (para 8).

Second, the rule. "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" (para 21).

Third, the Explanation to Section 3. When the amicus answered that Sections 8 and 9 apply only "If a person intends to convert his/her religion" (para 22), the State said "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" (para 24). The punishment, it reminded the court, "shall not be less than three years but which may extend to ten years" with a fine of at least ₹50,000 (para 23).

Fourth, the precedents. The Supreme Court judgments cited by the amicus "were passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court prior to the promulgation of the Act, 2021" (para 9). And a 2023 Division Bench ruling of the same court, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3310 of 2023 (2023 SCC OnLine All 323), was cited "to contend that a Muslim cannot reside in a live-in relationship as per their personal laws" (para 10; again at para 15).

Why it matters. The State's chain: living together is a relationship in the nature of marriage; that "requires" conversion paperwork; nobody filed it; so a crime punishable with up to ten years has been committed; and courts do not protect criminals. Its conclusion, in one sentence: "Such residing of the petitioners in relationship like marriage cannot get approval by the Court of law" (para 24). If that chain held, every unmarried interfaith couple in Uttar Pradesh would be outside police protection until one partner applied to convert.

What they say in answer. The State's argument was not invented in Court No. 81 in 2025. Its central sentence had been accepted by a judge of the same court in March 2024, and its last sentence matches, almost word for word, a line Division Benches of the same court wrote in 2024 and 2025. Claim 6 sets that out. The live version of this file called the State's sentence something that "went further than most people realise". The record shows it was a sentence some judges of that court had already adopted.

Evidence. The judgment, paras 8–10, 15, 20–24.

Verdict on this case. Documented. The State asked a High Court to treat cohabitation across religions, with no conversion alleged, as a crime under the 2021 Act. That is in the record in its counsel's own words.

Claim 3: one definition, read aloud

What happened. The judge answered the State with the Act's own definition.

How it happened. Paragraph 28 is the hinge. "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." Then the definition: "'Conversion' means renouncing one's own religion and adopting another religion" (para 28, quoting s. 2(c)).

Then the facts. "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 lets a complaint be filed; "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" (para 29).

And the sentence the case is remembered for: "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" (para 30).

Why it matters. Notice what the court did not have to do. It did not strike anything down. It read the Act as written. The State said the Explanation to Section 3 made a live-in relationship itself the offence. But the Explanation brings in conversion "by solemnization of marriage or relationship in the nature of marriage on account of factors enumerated in this sub-section": that is, a marriage or relationship used as the means of a conversion brought about by force, fraud, allurement and the rest. The court's reading is that the Explanation names a route; it does not remove the destination. There has to be a conversion. The Supreme Court described the Explanation the same way in October 2025: marriage or a relationship in the form of marriage is covered "if it is on account of the grounds enumerated in Sub-section (1)" (2025 INSC 1249, para 44).

The original 2020 Ordinance had put marriage itself in the list: conversion "by any fraudulent means or by marriage" (Ordinance, s. 3). The Act as reproduced in the 2026 judgment moves marriage into the Explanation and ties it to the listed factors (para 23). The text the State relied on is the narrower one.

What they say in answer. The State's reading of the Explanation is set out in Claim 2. The strongest form of it, and the benches that adopted it, are in Claim 6 and in "The strongest case for the other side".

Evidence. The judgment, paras 23, 28–30; the 2020 Ordinance, ss. 2(c) and 3 (PRS Legislative Research copy, page 2); 2025 INSC 1249, para 44.

Verdict on this case. Documented. The judgment holds that no offence under Sections 3 and 5 is made out where no conversion is alleged. The live version of this file said the State's reading of the Explanation was "a fair reading of those words" and that "The court did not disagree with it." That was wrong on both counts: the live text quoted the Explanation without the eight words "on account of factors enumerated in this sub-section", which are the textual answer to the State; and the court did reject the reading, by holding that a conversion "is necessary" (para 28).

Claim 4: the paperwork the State wanted twelve couples to file

What happened. Because the State built its case on Sections 8 and 9, the court printed them in full (para 30). They show what the State was asking twelve couples, none of whom wanted to convert, to do.

How it happened. Section 8: "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" that the conversion is "on his/her own and with his/her free consent". The person performing the ceremony, the "religious convertor", must give "one month's advance notice". The District Magistrate then "shall get an enquiry conducted through police with regard to real intention, purpose and cause of the proposed religious conversion". Breach renders the conversion "illegal and void"; the person converting faces six months to three years and a fine of at least ₹10,000; the convertor one to five years and at least ₹25,000 (para 30, s. 8(1)–(6)).

Section 9: the converted person sends a further declaration "within sixty days of the date of conversion"; the District Magistrate "shall exhibit a copy of the declaration on the notice board of the office till the date of confirmation"; the declaration gives date of birth, permanent address, present residence, father's or husband's name, the old religion and the new; the person must "appear before the District Magistrate within 21 days" to confirm it; objections are recorded; breach of sub-sections 1 to 4 renders the conversion "illegal and void" (para 30, s. 9(1)–(7)).

Why it matters. Two months' notice, a police enquiry into your "real intention", your name and address on a government notice board, a personal appearance. The court's answer was short: that machinery is for a person who "wishes to change/convert his or her religion" (para 30). It is not a licence to live together.

Four months before the 2026 judgment, the Supreme Court had looked at the same machinery in a different case and said something the State has not answered: "the provisions of the said Act pertaining to the pre and post-conversion declaration seem to introduce a very onerous procedure to be followed by an individual seeking to adopt a faith other than the one he professes. The involvement and interference of the State authorities in the conversion procedure is also conspicuous … Further, the statutory requirement of making public the personal details of each person who has converted to a different religion may require a deeper examination to ascertain if such a requirement fits well with the privacy regime pervading the constitution" (W.P. (Crl.) No. 123 of 2023 and connected matters, 2025 INSC 1249, 17 October 2025, para 55). The same bench said in terms that the Act's validity was not before it (para 37).

What they say in answer. The Act's stated object, as the Statement of Objects and Reasons put it and the Supreme Court recorded, is "to give meaningful effect to the constitutionally guaranteed right of religious freedom by ensuring that gullible persons are not converted from one religion to another by use of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or fraudulent means" (2025 INSC 1249, para 42). On that view, a sixty-day notice and an enquiry are the safeguard that tells a free conversion from a forced one. That is the State's answer, and it is a serious one. It answers the question of conversion. It does not answer the question of a couple in which nobody is converting.

Evidence. The judgment, para 30 (ss. 8 and 9 as reproduced); 2025 INSC 1249, paras 37, 42, 51–52, 55.

Verdict on this case. Documented. The declarations are for people who want to convert. Nobody in the twelve files did, and the State did not say anyone did.

Claim 5: "two grown up individuals"

What happened. Having settled the statute, the judge turned to the Constitution, and his language changed.

How it happened. "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 for a considerable time … 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" (para 31, spelling as in the original).

He set out the Supreme Court decisions the amicus had relied on and added others: - Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006): "once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes" (para 16). - Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas (2018): a court must not "assume the role of a super guardian" over an adult (para 32). - Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), on honour killings: "life and liberty sans dignity and choice is a phenomenon that allows hollowness to enter into the constitutional recognition of identity of a person" (para 34). - K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): "The family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral to the dignity of the individual" (para 35). - Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018): "Neither the state nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters" (para 44). - Supriyo v. Union of India (2023): under the Special Marriage Act of 1872 two people of different religions "were each required to renounce their respective religion"; Parliament replaced it in 1954 so that "any two persons could marry, with out having to repudiate their respective religions" (para 39, quoting the Supreme Court).

From his own court's orders he drew the equality point. A single-judge order of 17 December 2025 had protected a same-religion live-in couple (Writ-C No. 35171 of 2025). So: "the law is equal for all as per Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and if two persons of same religion may reside together in a live-in relationship, the other persons having different religion may also live together in a live-in relationship" (para 42). He also cited 17 interfaith marriage petitions allowed on 18 November 2021, holding the Act "per se does not prohibit interfaith marriage" (Writ-C No. 14806 of 2021; para 40); a Division Bench order of 8 April 2025 protecting an interfaith couple with a child (Writ-C No. 6408 of 2025; para 37); and a Delhi High Court order of 8 August 2025 (W.P. (Crl.) No. 2305 of 2025; para 38).

Why it matters. The State had said the Supreme Court's freedom-of-choice cases all came before the 2021 Act (paras 9, 20). That is true of the cases the amicus cited: Lata Singh (2006), Shafin Jahan (2018), Nandkumar (2018). It is not true of the line as a whole. Supriyo, decided by a Constitution Bench in October 2023, came after the Act, and the court relied on it (para 39). The live version of this file said the State's point "is correct" about the Supreme Court's cases without that qualification. The judge's deeper answer was that a later statute does not displace Article 21; it must be read consistently with it. "Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties" (para 49).

What they say in answer. On the 2023 Division Bench ruling the State relied on, the judgment quotes the passage at issue. That ruling had said: "in Muslim law no recognition can be given to sex outside marriage", and described the punishment "according to Quran (chapter 24)" as "hundred lashes for the unmarried male and female who commit fornication" and, for the married, "stoning to death" (para 26, quoting 2023 SCC OnLine All 323, para 21). That is the 2023 bench's statement of one personal law's rule, not a statement of Indian law. The 2026 judgment's answer is about the law of the land: "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" (para 27). The live version of this file said the single judge "declined to follow" the Division Bench ruling. The judgment does not say that. It distinguishes it by pointing out that no secular law enacts the punishment the 2023 ruling described.

Evidence. The judgment, paras 9–10, 15–17, 20, 26–27, 31–44, 49.

Verdict on this case. Documented. The constitutional holding is in paragraph 31 and rests on Supreme Court authority, including one decision that post-dates the Act.

Claim 6: the other line inside the same High Court

What happened. Before February 2026, benches of the Allahabad High Court had accepted the State's reading. The 2026 judgment does not name or discuss their orders. Its only reference to them is second-hand: it reproduces a passage from a December 2025 order that, "with due respect to the judgments rendered by the co-ordinate Benches, who have denied protection to couples, who were in a live-in relationship", was "unable to adopt the same view" (para 41), and says it "sees no reason to take a different view" (para 42).

How it happened. There are three strands. We read each order cited below in full on Indian Kanoon.

The 2023 Division Bench. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3310 of 2023, decided at Lucknow by a Division Bench on 28 April 2023 (2023 SCC OnLine All 323), refused to protect an interfaith live-in couple. Later orders of the court record the date and the refusal; we have not read that order itself. Its paragraph 21 on personal law is the one quoted above.

The single-judge dismissals of 2023. Single judges applied it within months. On 11 August 2023 a single judge dismissed an interfaith couple's live-in protection petition, writing that "judicial discipline does not permit this Court to have a different view in similar case as taken by said Division Bench" (Writ-C No. 13977 of 2023, 2023:AHC:163729, para 15); on 6 December 2023 another dismissed one "In view of the observation made in" the 2023 ruling (Writ-C No. 37917 of 2023, 2023:AHC:231043, para 6). The other line also existed then: on 5 September 2023 a bench of the same court protected an interfaith live-in couple (Writ-C No. 27338 of 2023), as the 2026 judgment records (paras 13–14) and an order of 14 March 2024 dates (2024:AHC:46140, para 15).

The single-judge dismissals of March 2024. In Court No. 81, between 12 and 20 March 2024, Justice Renu Agarwal dismissed at least four protection petitions by interfaith couples living together: Writ-C No. 1940 of 2024 (12 March, 2024:AHC:44420), Writ-C No. 40168 of 2023 (14 March, 2024:AHC:46140), Writ-C No. 7230 of 2024 (14 March, 2024:AHC:45648) and Writ-C No. 39982 of 2023 (20 March, 2024:AHC:50187). The order of 14 March 2024 in Writ-C No. 40168 of 2023 held: "after the promulgation of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act one cannot freely move with another except in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 8 and 9 of the aforesaid Act, or by marriage under the Special Marriage Act" (para 17). It quoted the Explanation to Section 3, found the couple had shown "no proof of joint account, financial security, joint property or joint expenditure", that they had "not applied for conversion so far", and concluded: "Petitioners cannot be provided protection of law in contravention of law of land" (paras 18, 21, 27–28). The orders of 14 March 2024 in Writ-C No. 7230 of 2024 and of 12 March 2024 in Writ-C No. 1940 of 2024 end: "it is not considered desirable that live-in-relationship of the petitioners be protected in contravention of the statutory provisions of law passed by legislature".

The Division Bench orders of 2024 and 2025. These were not protection petitions. They were petitions by interfaith couples to quash FIRs, usually for abduction, filed by a relative. Division Benches in which Justice Siddharth sat with four different colleagues wrote, with small variations, the same paragraph in at least five orders we read. In the order of 11 September 2025 it reads (paras 5–6):

"The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 came into force on 27.11.2020. Admittedly, both the petitioners belong to different religions and they have not solemnized their marriage in accordance to law rather they are residing in live-in relationship. Section 3(1) of Act, 2021 prohibits such live-in relationship which is in the nature of matrimonial bond. The punishment for contravention of provisions of aforesaid Section 3 has been provided under Section 5 of the Act, 2021, hence, such residing of petitioners in relationship like marriage cannot get approval by the Court of law."

The orders: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7955 of 2024 and No. 7922 of 2024 (16 May 2024, with Justice Surendra Singh-I; 2024:AHC:88988-DB and 2024:AHC:88650-DB); No. 4882 of 2025 (24 March 2025, with Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi; 2025:AHC:42858-DB); No. 16130 of 2025 (11 September 2025, with Justice Santosh Rai; 2025:AHC:160780-DB); No. 19190 of 2025 (15 September 2025, with Justice Harvir Singh; 2025:AHC:163601-DB). Each declined to quash the FIR unless the couple solemnised their marriage in accordance with law (in the last, "in accordance with above law or Special Marriage Act"), and each left the couple free to report threats to the police. The search index lists at least five more orders using the same sentence between April 2024 and September 2025; we did not read those.

A different Division Bench at Lucknow, on 29 July 2025, dismissed an interfaith couple's petition against an FIR with this sentence: "Moreover after the enactment ofThe Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, the device of living together without marriage has been adopted to escape from the clutches of the law" (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6838 of 2025, 2025:AHC-LKO:44016-DB, para 24, spacing as in the original).

Why it matters. This is the most important fact the live version of this file left out. Its closing paragraph said our mind would change on "a Division Bench or the Supreme Court holding, in a later reported judgment, that the Explanation to Section 3 makes an interfaith live-in relationship a conversion offence without any change of religion … We have found neither." In fact Division Benches of the same court had written that "Section 3(1) of Act, 2021 prohibits such live-in relationship" in orders that came before the 2026 judgment. They were short orders in criminal writs, not reported judgments that analysed Section 2(c). None of them asked whether a conversion had happened. But the sentence is there, signed by two judges, five times that we read.

Three things follow. First, the 2026 judgment did not name or discuss those orders or the 2023 and March 2024 dismissals; of the authorities against the couples, it names only the two Division Bench rulings the State cited (para 10), and its only general reference to benches that "denied protection" comes inside a quotation from a December 2025 order (para 41). Second, a single judge is ordinarily bound by a Division Bench, and conflicting views are ordinarily sent to a larger bench; we found no reference to a larger bench on this question as of 11 October 2026. Third, the two lines are not perfectly matched: the 2026 petitions had no FIR at all (para 29), while the Division Bench orders refused to quash FIRs that had been filed. A court can protect a couple from violence and still let an FIR be investigated. The 2026 judgment itself said it "would not come in way of investigation, if any, pending" (para 51(iv)).

What they say in answer. The Division Bench orders give their reason in one line: Section 3(1), with its Explanation, reaches a relationship "in the nature of matrimonial bond", and Section 5 punishes it. The March 2024 orders give two: the procedure in Sections 8 and 9 was not followed, and the couples had not shown a relationship "akin to marriage". The 2026 judgment's answer to both is Section 2(c): the offence is a conversion, and none was alleged (paras 28–29, 48). The Supreme Court's reading of the Explanation in October 2025, that marriage or a marriage-like relationship is covered "if it is on account of the grounds enumerated in Sub-section (1)", is closer to the 2026 judgment than to the Division Bench sentence (2025 INSC 1249, para 44). It was said in passing, in a case about who may file an FIR, not as a ruling on live-in couples.

Evidence. The ten High Court orders listed above, read in full on Indian Kanoon on 11 October 2026; the 2026 judgment, paras 10, 13–15, 29, 41 (quoting the 17 December 2025 order's reference to "co-ordinate Benches, who have denied protection to couples"), 48, 51(iv); 2025 INSC 1249, para 44.

Verdict on this case. Documented. The Allahabad High Court has spoken with two voices on whether an interfaith live-in relationship is itself caught by the 2021 Act. The 2026 judgment is the fullest reasoning on the question that we found, and its reading follows the Act's definition; that is our assessment, not a ruling. No larger bench and no Supreme Court judgment has yet decided between them.

Claim 7: the order the State had already issued

What happened. The most practical part of the judgment is the least reported. In 2019, in Writ-C No. 24328 of 2019, the High Court had told Uttar Pradesh to build a district-level system for couples facing threats, following the Supreme Court's Shakti Vahini judgment. The State issued Government Order No. 1/2019/591WRIT/Chh-Pu.-3-2019-2(344)P/2019, dated 31 August 2019, "laying down mandatory preventive, remedial and punitive measures for protection of couples facing threats on account of marriage or any consensual relationship" (para 45).

How it happened. The judgment reproduces the order in Hindi and in English (paras 46–47). The court summarised it: police "shall assess threat perception in each case, extend necessary protection, including safe accommodation and security shall be provided depending upon the gravity of the situation", and "Failure to comply with these directions has been made punishable by departmental action" (para 46). The English text says: - clause 3(2)(c): security to the couple or family, and "if necessary, they should be kept at a safe house within the same district", for "(i) young unmarried couples whose relationship is being opposed by their families or local khap" and "(ii) such young married (girls/boys) who relate to an inter-caste or inter-religious marriage"; - clause 3(2)(d): adults should first be supported "in the registration process of their marriage"; "After the marriage, if the couple so desire, they should be provided accommodation on payment of nominal charges in a secure house for a period of one month but not exceeding one year in aggregate"; - clause 3(2)(e): a preliminary inquiry into "the gravity of the case and threat perception", with a report "to the Senior Superintendent of Police within one week" (para 47).

Why it matters. The State's own order already told its police to protect "young unmarried couples whose relationship is being opposed by their families" (para 47). The judge made the order "binding upon all concerned authorities", to be "strictly complied with" (para 51(iii)). The live version of this file said couples "may be 'kept at a safe house within the same district' for 'one month but not exceeding one year in aggregate'". That joins two clauses. The safe house in clause (c) covers unmarried couples and states no time limit; the one-month-to-one-year secure house in clause (d) is offered "After the marriage", on nominal charges.

What they say in answer. We found no published State response on how many couples have been assessed or housed under the 2019 order. The State's position in court was that protection is due only where "there exists a credible and immediate threat" (para 8). The order it issued agrees on assessment: secure housing depends "on their threat assessment on case to case basis" (para 47, clause (d)).

Evidence. The judgment, paras 45–47, 51(iii).

Verdict on this case. Documented as to the order's text, as reproduced by the court. Not known as to how it is applied: we have seen no data.

Claim 8: what the court ordered, and what it refused to order

What happened. "The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in a catena of decision have held that live-in relation is neither prohibited nor punishable under any law. Therefore, considering Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the Act, 2021, it cannot be said that live-in relationship of interfaith couple is an offence. If an offence had been committed, it would have been reported by any person in terms of Section 4 of the Act, 2021. No F.I.R. or complaint has been registered till date in respect of live-in relationship of the petitioners" (para 48).

How it happened. The petitions were allowed with four directions (para 51): (i) the couples may approach the police if harmed, and the police "shall examine the matter and age of the petitioners and if they find any substance in the allegations of the petitioners, they will act in accordance with law for protection of life, limb and liberty"; (ii) the couples "may lodge a report/complaint if anybody attempts to convert their religion against their wishes, or by any fraudulent means, force, coercion, allurement, undue influence or practice of misrepresentation"; (iii) the 2019 Government Order is binding; (iv) "This order would not come in way of investigation, if any, pending before the Police Authorities."

Why it matters. The judgment is as careful about what it does not do as about what it does. "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" (para 48). Then two clarifications: "this Court has not adjudicated the correct age of the petitioners. It is further clarified, this order has not been passed to protect the petitioners against any action or proceedings instituted in accordance with law" (para 56). And: "Since the petition is being disposed of in limine, any person aggrieved by it is at liberty to apply for its recall, if the order has been obtained by suppression or concealment of facts or on false averments" (para 57). No costs (para 52).

What they say in answer. Critics of such rulings say a protection order can shield against a family's genuine complaint, for example of a minor taken from home. The judgment's own text answers: age is for the police to verify, pending investigations go on, and the order can be recalled (paras 51(i), 51(iv), 56, 57). The court did not order guards posted; it told the police to act "if they find any substance in the allegations".

Evidence. The judgment, paras 48–57.

Verdict on this case. Documented. The court protected twelve couples from unlawful harm and protected nobody from the law. It did not touch the validity of the Act.

Claim 9: since 23 February 2026

What happened. The judgment did not stay a single ruling. It is now a reported precedent that other judges apply, it sits beside a Supreme Court that has questioned the Act's procedure, and the constitutional challenge to the Act is still pending.

How it happened. In order:

• The citation. The judgment is reported as 2026 SCC OnLine All 456 (as cited in a later order of 24 September 2026). (Documented, from that order.)
• 7 August to 24 September 2026. Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, sitting alone, disposed of at least six interfaith live-in protection petitions by applying it: "The issue involved in the present petition has already been dealt with in Writ-C No. 41127 of 2025 … wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court, while allowing a bunch of writ petitions of similar nature protected such petitioners having different faiths". The State's counsel opposed the petition in the order we read in full (para 4). We read the order of 24 September 2026 (Writ-C No. 18039 of 2026, 2026:AHC:201223) in full and confirmed the same citation in five more (2026:AHC:165819, 165831, 165958, 195018, 195925). (Documented.)
• 25 August 2026. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, now in Court No. 72, allowed two more such petitions (Writ-C No. 33886 of 2026, 2026:AHC:179286, and one other), holding that "The facts of the present case is similar" and repeating the four directions and the age caveat. (Documented.)
• 21 September 2026. LiveLaw reported that Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary protected an interfaith same-sex couple living together, holding that "living in a live-in relationship is their fundamental right under Article 21". (Reported.)
• Not every couple wins. On 14 May 2026 LiveLaw reported that Justice Garima Prashad dismissed an interfaith couple's protection plea because the man was under 21, the minimum age for a man to marry under the secular statutes, holding that "what cannot be achieved either as a valid secular marriage or as a pleaded lawful marriage … cannot be judicially reconstituted as a sanctioned live-in arrangement", while leaving the couple free to complain to the police of any threat. (Reported.)
• 6 October 2026. A Division Bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Amitabh Kumar Rai, as LiveLaw reported on 9 October, directed the Marriage Officer in Lucknow not to publish the Special Marriage Act notice for an interfaith couple facing threats, and directed the police to protect them. (Reported.)
• Third-party FIRs. On 16 April 2026 Bar & Bench reported that a Lucknow Division Bench of Justices Abdul Moin and Pramod Kumar Srivastava called FIRs "being lodged by third parties under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021" a "disturbing trend", after the woman said to have been enticed told a magistrate she was an adult, in love, and had not changed her religion; the court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to file a personal affidavit on what action is taken when such FIRs prove "patently fallacious". We have not read that order or found the State's affidavit. (Reported.)

At the Supreme Court:

• 17 October 2025. 2025 INSC 1249, W.P. (Crl.) No. 123 of 2023 and connected matters (Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra), quashed several FIRs under the Act. It held that FIRs lodged before 2024 by people outside the categories in the old Section 4 were defective: the old Section 4 was restrictive because "religious belief being an inherently personal and private aspect of an individual's identity, it is only such a person or persons closely associated to him, who would be competent to report" (para 109). It called Sections 8 and 9 "a very onerous procedure" (para 55). It said the Act's validity was not before it and that it was "aware of the proceedings pending before this Court wherein the constitutional validity of the U.P. Conversion Act is being looked into" (para 37). (Documented.)
• The pending challenge. The lead petition, Citizens for Justice and Peace v. State of Uttar Pradesh, W.P. (Crl.) No. 428 of 2020, challenges anti-conversion laws of several states, Uttar Pradesh's among them. On 16 April 2025 a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar took up applications in it, including one for interim relief, and allowed responses to be filed; on 17 April 2025 the same bench, hearing a separate transfer petition, expressed reluctance to pull into the Supreme Court the 21 petitions pending in six High Courts, Uttar Pradesh's among them, as LiveLaw reported. On 2 February 2026 a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi tagged a new petition by the National Council of Churches in India (W.P. (C) No. 98 of 2026), challenging the laws of twelve states including Uttar Pradesh, with the batch, which LiveLaw reported "will be heard by a three-judge bench"; the Solicitor General opposed the petition. (Reported.) We found no hearing on the merits and no interim order on the Uttar Pradesh law after that date.

Why it matters. Eight months after it was delivered, the 2026 judgment is the version of the law that single judges of the Allahabad High Court are applying to interfaith live-in couples, without a contrary order from a larger bench that we could find. The Supreme Court has not decided the Act's validity, and its October 2025 remarks are not a ruling on it. The law on the ground is therefore the definition in Section 2(c), read the way the 2026 judgment read it, until a larger bench or the Supreme Court says otherwise.

What they say in answer. The State's counsel continued to oppose interfaith live-in protection petitions after February 2026 (Writ-C No. 18039 of 2026, para 4). We found no appeal by the State against the 2026 judgment and no application to recall it under paragraph 57. The Union's position in the Supreme Court, through the Solicitor General, is opposition to the challenges; in April 2025 he told the court, as reported, "there are no instances" of the laws being weaponised.

Evidence. 2025 INSC 1249, paras 37, 40, 42, 44–55, 109, 161, read in the Supreme Court's text on Indian Kanoon; the Allahabad High Court orders of 25 August and 24 September 2026, read in full; LiveLaw of 16 and 17 April 2025, 2 February, 24 February, 14 May, 21 September and 9 October 2026; Bar & Bench of 16 April 2026.

Verdict on this case. Documented for the High Court orders and the October 2025 judgment; reported for the Supreme Court's 2025–2026 hearings and the 2026 orders we know only from the press. Nothing decided since February 2026 contradicts the judgment; the conflict described in Claim 6 remains unresolved.

The strongest case for the other side

What this section shows: the State's position, put as strongly as the record allows. A reader should be able to argue it after reading this.

One: the State's stated aim is constitutionally recognised. In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (17 January 1977), a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Madhya Pradesh and Orissa freedom of religion laws. It held that Article 25 grants "not the right to convert another person to one's own religion, but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets", and that "if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion … that would impinge on the 'freedom of conscience' guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike". It held such laws valid as laws for "public order": "if an attempt is made to raise communal passions, e.g. on the ground that some one has been 'forcibly' converted to another religion, it would, in all probability, give rise to an apprehension of a breach of the public order". That judgment still stands. A law against forced or fraudulent conversion is not, on present Supreme Court authority, unconstitutional in principle.

Two: the Explanation does name relationships. The words "relationship in the nature of marriage" are in the Explanation to Section 3. The legislature chose to put them there. The State's reading, that the legislature meant to reach conversions carried out through live-in relationships and not only weddings, has a textual footing. Where a relationship is used to bring about a conversion by force, fraud or allurement, the Act does reach it, and the 2026 judgment agrees (para 28).

Three: several judges of the same court read the Act the State's way. At least two single-judge orders in 2023, four in March 2024 and five Division Bench orders between May 2024 and September 2025 did (Claim 6). A single judge sitting alone in 2026 took the other view without naming or discussing them. If a larger bench is asked, the State will say the Division Bench sentence binds.

Four: the evidential point was fair. The State said the threats were "vague, speculative and unsupported by any contemporaneous complaint", with "No specific time, date or incident" (para 8). The court did not find any threat proved. It sent the couples back to the police to act "if they find any substance in the allegations" (para 51(i)). The State's standard became the test.

Five: age and genuine complaints. The State's concern, and that of families, is that protection orders granted in limine, without notice to the relatives (para 11), can be obtained on false facts, including about age. The judgment accepts the risk by inviting recall (para 57) and leaving age to the police (para 51(i)). In May 2026 another judge refused protection where the man was under 21 (Claim 9).

What the record says in reply. The crime is a conversion (s. 2(c)); the Explanation reaches a relationship only "on account of factors enumerated in this sub-section"; and in none of the twelve files did anyone allege a conversion or file a complaint, which since 2024 "any person" may do (paras 29, 48). Stainislaus upheld laws against forced conversion, not a rule that two adults who keep their own religions offend by living together. The Division Bench orders did not engage with Section 2(c) at all.

What is proved, what is only alleged, and what we refuse to claim

What this section shows: every claim in this file, in exactly one column.

Documented, read by us in the original or in a court-text copy: - The twelve petitions; seven Muslim women living with Hindu men and five Hindu women living with Muslim men; protection from relatives sought; adults by their own account, not disputed by the State (2026:AHC:39447, paras 2–3, 12). - The State's arguments: no Section 8/9 application, "unlawful and illegal", "cannot freely move with another", "no relief can be granted to a wrong doer", the Explanation argument, the evidential objection (paras 8–10, 15, 20–24). - The holding that an offence under Sections 3 and 5 needs a conversion as defined in Section 2(c), and that none was alleged (paras 28–30, 48). - The constitutional holding (para 31) and the authorities relied on (paras 16, 32–44). - The 2019 Government Order's text as reproduced, and its being made binding (paras 45–47, 51(iii)). - The four directions, the age caveat, the recall clause, no costs (paras 51, 52, 56, 57). - The Act's sections as reproduced in the judgment, including the 2024 form of Section 5 (paras 23, 28, 30); the 2020 Ordinance's text of Sections 2(c), 3, 4, 5 and 6. - The March 2024 single-judge dismissals and the 2024–2025 Division Bench orders saying Section 3(1) "prohibits such live-in relationship" (Claim 6, ten orders read in full). - That the 2026 judgment does not name or discuss those orders; its only reference to benches that "denied protection" is inside a quoted December 2025 order (para 41) (text searched in full). - The 2023 single-judge dismissals of 11 August and 6 December 2023 that followed the 2023 Division Bench (2023:AHC:163729, 2023:AHC:231043). - 2025 INSC 1249: the Ordinance of 27 November 2020 and Act of 4 March 2021; the 2024 amendments to Sections 4, 5 and 7; the "very onerous procedure" observation; validity not decided; FIRs quashed. - Stainislaus (1977): no fundamental right to convert another; such laws upheld as public-order laws. - The later orders of 25 August and 7 August to 24 September 2026 applying the judgment; its citation 2026 SCC OnLine All 456.

Reported by credible legal press, from a record or event we could not open: - The 2023 Lucknow Division Bench order's date of 28 April 2023 and its refusal of protection (from later orders of the same court). - The Supreme Court hearings of 16 and 17 April 2025 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 428 of 2020; the tagging of W.P. (C) No. 98 of 2026 on 2 February 2026 and the three-judge bench. - The Lucknow Division Bench order of April 2026 on third-party FIRs. - The May 2026 refusal of protection where the man was under 21; the September 2026 same-sex interfaith protection order; the October 2026 Special Marriage Act notice order.

Alleged by a party in court, never tested: - That the twelve couples faced threats from relatives (their petitions; the court decided nothing about it). - That the threats were "vague, speculative" and that there was no "real and immediate threat" (the State, para 8). - That anti-conversion laws are being "weaponised" (petitioners in the Supreme Court, as reported), and that "there are no instances" (the Solicitor General, as reported).

Claimed by a party, not decided by any court: - That an interfaith live-in relationship without a conversion application is itself an offence under the 2021 Act (the State of Uttar Pradesh, paras 21, 24). Several benches accepted it in 2023–2025; the 2026 judgment rejected it and single judges have followed that judgment since; no larger bench has decided.

Not claimed by this file, because nobody has proved it: - That the Act is unconstitutional. No court has held so. - That any of the twelve couples was in fact in danger, or in fact adult. The court decided neither. - That the judges who took the other view were wrong in law. We set out why the 2026 reading follows the Act's definition; that is our assessment, not a ruling. - That any community as a whole is responsible for forced conversions, or for threats against couples. The record names individual respondents, not communities. - Anything about any petitioner beyond what the orders record. We name none of them.

The whole file on one page

What this section shows: nine links, from a courtroom in 2024 to a pending case in the Supreme Court. Read it slowly.

One. In March 2024, in Court No. 81, a judge dismisses interfaith couples' protection pleas: without Section 8/9 papers, "one cannot freely move with another". (Documented)

Two. In 2024 and 2025, Division Benches of the same court write five times that we read: "Section 3(1) of Act, 2021 prohibits such live-in relationship". (Documented)

Three. Twelve couples of different religions ask for protection from their relatives in 2025; the police, they say, paid no heed. (Documented)

Four. The State says they are criminals for not filing conversion papers and should get nothing. (Documented)

Five. On 23 February 2026 the judge in Court No. 81 reads Section 2(c): conversion means renouncing one religion and adopting another. Nobody here did. No offence. (Documented)

Six. He protects all twelve, makes the 2019 protection order binding, decides nobody's age, shields nobody from lawful proceedings. (Documented)

Seven. His judgment does not name or discuss the orders that went the other way. No larger bench has reconciled the two lines. (Documented)

Eight. The Supreme Court calls the Act's declaration procedure "very onerous" in October 2025 but does not decide its validity; the challenge waits for a three-judge bench. (Documented / Reported)

Nine. Through August and September 2026, single judges apply the 2026 judgment to new couples. (Documented)

What we could not prove

• Whether any of the twelve couples was in danger, or adult. The court decided neither, and we have not seen the petitions or affidavits.
• What happened to them. Whether the police gave protection, whether any relative applied for recall under paragraph 57. No later record that we found.
• Whether the State appealed. We found no appeal and no recall application. The court's own case-status pages sit behind a CAPTCHA, which we did not attempt to bypass. An appeal would change Claim 9.
• The 2023 Lucknow Division Bench order itself. We know its date, number and paragraph 21 from later orders that quote it. We did not open the order.
• The other five Division Bench orders using the "prohibits such live-in relationship" sentence, which the search index lists and we did not read; and whether any Division Bench has used it since February 2026. In our searches we found none.
• The Supreme Court's written orders in W.P. (Crl.) No. 428 of 2020 of April 2025 and February 2026, and any later listing. The court's site requires a CAPTCHA. We rely on LiveLaw's reports.
• The 2024 Amendment Act's own text and date of assent. We rely on the Supreme Court's description of it (2025 INSC 1249, paras 45–49) and on the amended Section 5 as reproduced in the 2026 judgment. India Code did not respond to our requests.
• How the 2019 Government Order is applied. We found no figures on threat assessments, safe houses or departmental action.
• The April 2026 Lucknow order on third-party FIRs and the State's affidavit in reply. Known only from Bar & Bench.

The verdict

The Allahabad High Court held on 23 February 2026 that an interfaith couple living together, with no conversion alleged, has committed no offence under Uttar Pradesh's 2021 anti-conversion law and is entitled to police protection like anyone else. That is in paragraphs 28 to 31, 48 and 51, and it rests on the Act's own definition: conversion means "renouncing one's own religion and adopting another religion".

The claim that the court held this, and protected the twelve couples, is true.

The claim that the court struck down or weakened the Act is false. It read the Act as written, told the couples to complain if anyone tried to convert them, kept every pending investigation alive, decided nobody's age, and invited recall if it was misled.

The claim that the question is now settled is also false, and this is the correction the live version of this file most needed. Division Benches of the same High Court had written in 2024 and 2025 that the Act "prohibits such live-in relationship", and single judges had refused such couples protection in 2023 and 2024. The 2026 judgment did not name or discuss those orders; it noted only, through a quoted December 2025 order, that some benches had "denied protection" (para 41). No larger bench has decided between the two lines, and the Supreme Court has not decided the Act's validity, though it has called the declaration procedure "very onerous".

What would change our mind: a larger bench of the Allahabad High Court, or the Supreme Court, holding that the Explanation to Section 3 makes an interfaith live-in relationship an offence without any conversion; or a record that these petitions were recalled under paragraph 57. We have found neither.

Twelve couples asked to be left alone. The State said they were criminals for not filing a form. One judge read the form's own definition and said no. Two years earlier, in a courtroom with the same number, another judge had said yes. The law of Uttar Pradesh is, for now, whatever the next larger bench says it is, and every interfaith couple in the state is waiting for it.

Corrections

• 11 October 2026. The earlier version called all twelve petitioners "all adults" as a fact. The record shows they said they were adults, the State did not dispute it, and the court said it "has not adjudicated the correct age of the petitioners" (2026:AHC:39447, paras 12, 56).
• 11 October 2026. The earlier version gave three to ten years and a fine of at least ₹50,000 as the Act's punishment without saying when it applied. The record shows that is the 2024 amended Section 5; the 2020 text punished the basic offence with one to five years and a fine of at least ₹15,000 (Ordinance No. 21 of 2020, s. 5; 2025 INSC 1249, para 49).
• 11 October 2026. The earlier version quoted the Explanation to Section 3 without the words "on account of factors enumerated in this sub-section", called the State's reading "a fair reading of those words" and said "The court did not disagree with it". The record shows the Explanation contains those words, and the court rejected the State's reading by holding that a conversion "is necessary" (para 28); the Supreme Court read the Explanation the same way (2025 INSC 1249, para 44).
• 11 October 2026. The earlier version said "That is correct" of the State's claim that the Supreme Court's freedom-of-choice cases all pre-date the 2021 Act. The record shows the judgment also relied on Supriyo (October 2023), which came after the Act (para 39).
• 11 October 2026. The earlier version said the judge "declined to follow" the 2023 Division Bench ruling. The record shows the judgment does not say that; it answers the ruling's personal-law paragraph by noting that no Indian law punishes with lashes or stoning (para 27).
• 11 October 2026. The earlier version said couples may be kept "at a safe house within the same district" for "one month but not exceeding one year in aggregate". The record shows those are two clauses of the 2019 Government Order: the safe house in clause (c) has no stated period; the one-month-to-one-year secure house in clause (d) is offered "After the marriage" (para 47).
• 11 October 2026. The earlier version said a 2025 Division Bench "ordered the Sambhal police to register the FIR they had refused". The record shows the direction was to ensure the FIR is registered "if the parents of the child approach the police station" (para 37).
• 11 October 2026. The earlier version said "The judgment lists the couples by name". The record shows the judgment names only the first petitioner of each petition, with "and another" (cover pages).
• 11 October 2026. The earlier version presented the State's sentence that a couple "cannot freely move with another" without conversion papers as going "further than most people realise". The record shows a single judge of the same court had adopted that sentence as a holding on 14 March 2024 (Writ-C No. 40168 of 2023, 2024:AHC:46140, para 17).
• 11 October 2026. The earlier version said, in its verdict, that we had found no Division Bench holding that the Explanation to Section 3 makes an interfaith live-in relationship an offence without a change of religion, and described the High Court's own line of cases as running one way. The record shows Division Benches wrote in at least five orders between 16 May 2024 and 15 September 2025 that "Section 3(1) of Act, 2021 prohibits such live-in relationship", and single judges dismissed such couples' protection petitions in 2023 and 2024 (Claim 6).