In a significant judgment reinforcing the constitutional right to personal liberty, the Allahabad High Court strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh Police for unlawfully detaining an inter-faith couple merely due to “social pressure.” The Court underscored that the State and its officers cannot become instruments of societal prejudice, reminding authorities that constitutional morality must always prevail over social morality.
The ruling has sparked widespread discussion across legal and human rights circles for its firm stand on protecting the right to marry and cohabit freely irrespective of religion or community.
The Case: A Couple Detained for Choosing Each Other
The case arose when an inter-faith couple from Uttar Pradesh approached the High Court seeking protection from harassment by the police and local residents. The woman, a Hindu by birth, and the man, a Muslim, had entered into a consensual relationship and were living together as adults.
Despite being of legal age and acting with full consent, the couple alleged that local police officials detained them at the police station after receiving complaints from community members who objected to their relationship.
The police justified their action citing “public unrest” and “social pressure,” claiming that the detention was preventive in nature.
However, the Allahabad High Court found no lawful basis for the detention and condemned the police for acting as “custodians of social morality” rather than protectors of individual rights.
Court’s Strong Observations
The Bench, headed by Justice Kshitij Shailendra, came down heavily on the police, stating that no one can be deprived of their liberty on the ground of public or social disapproval.
In its strongly worded order, the Court observed:
“The Constitution of India guarantees every adult citizen the right to choose a partner of their choice. The police cannot detain, harass, or interfere merely because society disapproves of an inter-faith relationship.”
The Court further reminded the police that their duty is to protect individuals exercising their fundamental rights, not to act as instruments of moral policing.
A Reminder of Constitutional Morality
This case brings back into focus the debate between constitutional morality and social morality — a recurring theme in Indian jurisprudence.
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that the Constitution protects individual autonomy, dignity, and liberty under Article 21, which cannot be curtailed by social norms or prejudices.
Justice Shailendra stated that in a democracy governed by the rule of law, “social disapproval cannot be a substitute for legal authority.”
This line of reasoning echoes the Supreme Court’s landmark judgments in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) (popularly known as the Hadiya case) and Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006), where the Court held that adults have an unfettered right to choose their life partners irrespective of religion or caste.
Legal Context: Inter-faith Marriages and Fundamental Rights
Under Indian law, the Special Marriage Act, 1954 allows people of different faiths to marry without converting. However, in practice, inter-faith couples often face societal hostility, family threats, and sometimes police interference.
The Allahabad High Court’s order reinforces that any police intervention must have a clear statutory basis, and public pressure cannot justify unlawful detention.
The Court’s reasoning draws heavily from Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution, which safeguard personal choices and autonomy.
By calling out the police action as arbitrary, the Court has once again reminded law enforcement agencies that they are bound by the Constitution, not by societal sentiment.
The Court’s Directions
The Allahabad High Court issued clear directions in its order:
- Immediate release of the couple, declaring their detention illegal.
- A warning to the concerned police officers, emphasizing that such actions will invite disciplinary proceedings.
- Instructions to the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) to circulate the judgment among all police stations to ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards in similar matters.
- A direction to the State Legal Services Authority to assist couples facing harassment due to inter-faith or inter-caste relationships.
The Court also stated that any future complaint against consenting adults should be handled strictly within the framework of law, without infringing upon their privacy or freedom.
Judicial Support for the Right to Choose
The High Court’s stance aligns with a series of progressive rulings by Indian courts that have consistently defended the right to love and marry freely:
- Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006) – The Supreme Court directed police protection for inter-caste and inter-faith couples facing harassment.
- Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) – The apex court condemned honour killings and directed states to protect couples from khap panchayats or community violence.
- Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) – The Court affirmed that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21.
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – Expanded the scope of individual autonomy and privacy as fundamental rights, including in matters of sexual orientation and relationships.
The Allahabad High Court’s latest judgment thus fits within the larger constitutional framework that prioritizes individual freedom over collective bias.
Police Accountability and Rule of Law
The judgment has renewed calls for accountability and sensitivity training for police officers handling cases involving personal relationships.
Human rights lawyers have often pointed out that local police act under informal social pressure — from families, political leaders, or religious groups — in cases of inter-faith or inter-caste relationships.
The High Court’s observations serve as a stern reminder that law enforcement must remain neutral and constitutional, not majoritarian.
Failure to do so undermines public trust in the justice system.
Broader Social Implications
While the legal position is clear, the societal mindset toward inter-faith relationships in India remains deeply divided.
Despite legal protection under the Special Marriage Act, couples frequently face intimidation, violence, or ostracization.
This judgment not only provides legal relief to one couple but also sends a symbolic message across India — that the Constitution, not community sentiment, is the final authority.
It also reinforces India’s identity as a secular democracy, where every citizen — regardless of religion — enjoys equal protection of the law.
A Step Toward Upholding Individual Autonomy
The Allahabad High Court’s decision goes beyond one case; it reaffirms a foundational constitutional truth — the State exists to protect liberty, not to regulate it.
By condemning the unlawful detention of the inter-faith couple, the Court has once again emphasized that personal choice in matters of love, marriage, and companionship lies at the heart of human dignity.
If the directive is implemented effectively across Uttar Pradesh, it could pave the way for more rights-based policing and reduced harassment of couples from different communities.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s firm stance against the UP Police’s unlawful detention of an inter-faith couple represents a powerful assertion of constitutional supremacy over social conservatism.
It serves as a timely reminder that in India’s democracy, the Constitution is the moral compass that guides both citizens and the State.
As India continues to navigate the complex intersection of religion, law, and personal freedom, this judgment stands as a milestone in the ongoing evolution of civil liberties and secular values.
Also Read
Omar Abdullah Mulls Legal Move for J&K Statehood: What It Means & Why It Matters
Kerala High Court Rejects BCI’s Review Plea on Powers of State Bar Council After Term Expiry
