ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Prayagraj: In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court declared that the UP Conversion Law applies not only to marriages but to live-in relationships as well. Justice Renu Agarwal made this assertion while rejecting a request for police protection from an interfaith couple.
The court determined that conversion is necessary not only in marriages but also in similar situations, like live-in relationships. Thus, the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, is applicable to marriages and live-in relationships.
The Act, effective from March 5, 2021, mandates interfaith couples to seek conversion as per its provisions. In the present case, none of the petitioners has applied for religious conversion under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the court noted. Referring to the explanation for Section 3(1) of the Act, the court emphasized that conversion by misrepresentation, force, coercion, or any fraudulent means, as well as abetting or colluding in such conversion, is prohibited.
As the petitioners have not sought conversion under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, their relationship cannot be protected in violation of the law, the court stated. It underscored that the legislation mandates conversion not only in inter-caste marriages but also in marriage-like partnerships. “Hence, courts should refrain from embarking upon the interpretation of law in any sense when the law is very explicit,” the court added. Justice Agarwal also cited a Supreme Court judgment, stating that a couple must be of legal age, eligible for legal marriage, including being unmarried, and must have been analogous to each other for a significant duration.
In its March 5 judgment, the high court highlighted the absence of evidence such as joint accounts, financial security, joint property, or joint expenditure. The petitioners have not sought conversion yet.
The court denied protection to the inter-religion couple, stating, “To date, no FIR has been filed by the parents of any of the petitioners, so there is no challenge to the petitioners’ relationship.”
