A Division Bench comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant declared the couple’s detention by police as ‘illegal’ and a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court ordered their immediate release and safe escort to Aligarh, and further directed that they be allowed to proceed to Bareilly under continued police protection.

Court steps in after couple disappears post-hearing

The couple had appeared before the Allahabad High Court on October 15, 2025, in connection with three pending writ petitions—one of them seeking police protection, previously granted by the Court on September 3. During the hearing, Rashmi made a voluntary statement affirming that she was a major, had married Shane Alam, and wished to live with him out of her own free will.

However, soon after the hearing, the couple reportedly went missing. A habeas corpus petition [Tehseem and Another vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others] was immediately filed by Shane’s brother, Tehseem, claiming that the couple had been abducted with the involvement of Rashmi’s father and some unknown individuals, with police assistance.

On October 17, the Bench, terming the case urgent, ordered police and respondents—including Rashmi’s father and top officials of Aligarh and Prayagraj—to produce the couple in court by 12 PM on October 18. The urgency of the matter led the Court to conduct proceedings on a Saturday, a non-working day.

The order of Allahabad HC dated October 18, 2025 may be read here:

‘No justification for illegal detention’: HC

According to Live Law, on October 18, a Sub-Inspector from Aligarh police produced Shane Alam and Rashmi before the Court. The Government Advocate informed the Bench that the girl had been produced before the Judicial Magistrate in Aligarh on October 17, who confirmed her age and recorded her voluntary statement. She had clearly expressed her wish to go with Shane, and was ordered to be released.

The Court recorded her statements made both before the Magistrate and again during an in-camera interaction. Rashmi stated that she was 21 years old, had married Shane, and wished to live with him. She categorically denied any coercion, as reported

Despite her clear consent and legal age, the couple alleged that they had been abducted by Rashmi’s father and others with police support after leaving the court on October 15. Shane was kept at a police station, and Rashmi was sent to a ‘One Stop Centre’ until they were produced before the Magistrate two days later, as the Live Law reported

Reviewing the case diary and the girl’s statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Bench noted that she had voluntarily left with Shane. Yet, the Investigating Officer had continued to probe issues related to the inter-faith nature of their relationship and the alleged failure to inform the District Magistrate about the marriage—investigations which the Court held were unwarranted.

As per Live Law, rejecting the state’s argument that ‘social tension’ justified the couple’s detention, the Court observed:

“The plea that the girl had to be kept at ‘One Stop Centre’ and the petitioner no. 2 was detained at the police station because of the social tension in the area due to the different religions of the parties is not acceptable and cannot justify the detention… A person can be detained by the police or other state authorities only under law.”

The Court further added:

“A detention under social pressure but without authority of law does not make the detention legal but only increases the illegality… In a democratic country governed by Rule of Law, the State Government and its law-enforcement machinery are expected to protect the liberty of a citizen and not to succumb to social pressures” as reported

Police officers may face action

The Bench ruled that the detention of both individuals from October 15 to 18 was illegal. It directed the Investigating Officer to escort the couple safely to their desired location and ordered the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, along with SSPs of Aligarh and Bareilly, to ensure continued protection and prevent any interference in their companionship.

The Court also directed the SSP, Aligarh, to conduct an inquiry into the entire episode and submit a detailed report by November 28, 2025. His personal presence has also been ordered on the next date of hearing.

Background of the case

According to the petition, Rashmi and Shane had been in a consensual relationship and began living together on July 30, 2025. Her father filed an abduction FIR two months later, which the petitioner claimed was motivated by mala fide intent.

Despite the High Court’s earlier order granting police protection, local police allegedly failed to act and even harassed Shane’s family. The October 15 hearing was meant to resolve ongoing petitions related to the FIR and protection orders.

However, after their testimony affirming their relationship, the couple vanished from the court premises around 5 PM. It was alleged that Rashmi’s father, accompanied by unknown persons, was seen in the court complex and had intimidated the couple. Despite immediate court directions, no FIR was registered regarding their disappearance, prompting the habeas corpus plea.

Court keeps matter open

While the couple has been set free and declared safe, the High Court has kept the matter open in view of the serious questions raised—about police inaction, misuse of law, and suppression of individual liberty in inter-faith relationships.

Related:

SC: Freedom for man in interfaith union: SC grants bail to Muslim partner

Inter-Community clashes erupt at Dehradun railway station after interfaith couple meets

By quashing the FIR against an interfaith couple accused of “conversion”, the Allahabad High Court restores jurisprudence on a constitutional path, upholds freedom of choice

The post Allahabad High Court directs UP Police to ensure safe return of inter-faith to their desired destination appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On May 19, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order even as it allowed an appeal filed by a man, who was denied bail by the Uttarakhand High Court in February 2025. The petitioner was arrested under provisions of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for allegedly concealing his religious identity and fraudulently marrying the woman under Hindu rites.

In the order, the Supreme Court said: “The respondent-state cannot have any objection to the appellant and his wife residing together inasmuch as they have been married as per the wishes of their respective parents and families.” The bench further clarified that the ongoing criminal proceedings would not come in the way of the couple living together by choice.

The court further directed the petitioner’s release on bail, noting that he had been incarcerated for nearly six months and that a charge sheet had already been filed. “Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made out,” said the bench.  The SC also took note of the argument made by the senior counsel for the petitioner, who contended that the FIR was lodged only after certain individuals and organisations objected to the interfaith marriage. It was pointed out that the wedding took place with the full knowledge and presence of both families, and that Siddiqui provided an affidavit the day after the marriage affirming he would not force his wife to convert and that she would be free to follow her faith.

The Supreme Court also made it clear in their order that during “the pendency of the criminal proceeding against the man,” he and his wife would be free to reside together if they did so “on their own volition.”

This incident is the latest in a long line of incidents where personal relationships have been politicised by the far right, with Uttarakhand being among the most regressive states on this issue.

The FIR in this case was lodged on December 12, 2024, at Rudrapur Police Station in Uttarakhand’s Udham Singh Nagar district, just two days after the couple’s wedding on December 10. The Uttarakhand High Court, had, in February this year, declined to grant Siddiqui bail, holding that facts relating to his religion had allegedly not been disclosed to the woman and her family before the marriage. In its February 28 order rejecting bail, the High Court accepted the prosecution’s argument that the man’s religious identity was deliberately concealed. The High Court observed that while the wedding was solemnised under Hindu customs, and the applicant and his family failed to reveal their Muslim identity until after the marriage.

The complaint was reportedly lodged by a cousin of the woman, alleging that the family discovered the groom’s religious background only upon visiting his residence in Delhi, where they noticed that “most of the people belonged to a different community.” The FIR was filed the very next day, despite an affidavit submitted by Siddiqui on December 11 assuring that he would not pressure his wife into converting and would respect her religious autonomy.

While Siddiqui’s counsel highlighted that his own mother is a practising Hindu and that he grew up in a Hindu environment, the Uttarakhand High Court remained unconvinced. It noted that the couple did not marry under the Special Marriage Act, which governs interfaith unions in India, and that key facts were allegedly kept from the woman’s family, pointing to the affidavit as evidence that “correct facts had not been disclosed.” Rejecting the defence that the information was known to both sides, the High Court concluded, “The applicant does not deserve bail.” This order by a constitutional court raises questions on the issue of constitutional rights and liberty.

In contrast, the Supreme Court viewed the matter through the lens of personal liberty and marital autonomy, reiterating that the right of adult individuals to live together cannot be curtailed by the state on the ground of religious difference. “This is an appropriate case where the relief of bail ought to be granted,” held the bench, noting the petitioner’s submissions that the couple may choose to live separately from their families and continue to live peacefully without any hindrance.

The Order of the Supreme Court may be read here.

Related:

Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh High Courts deliver two contradictory judgments on interfaith marriage without conversion under Special Marriage Act (SMA)

By quashing the FIR against an interfaith couple accused of “conversion”, the Allahabad High Court restores jurisprudence on a constitutional path, upholds freedom of choice

The post SC: Freedom for man in interfaith union: SC grants bail to Muslim partner appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the video, a man is seen forcibly pulling off the woman’s hijab as others shout abuses, harass, and physically attack both her and the man she was with. The incident occurred in the Khalapar area while the duo—riding a bike—were returning from Sujroo village after collecting a loan EMI on behalf of Utkarsh Small Finance Bank. The woman, according to her police complaint, stated she had been accompanying one of her mother’s colleagues on official duty when they were suddenly stopped and assaulted.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by The Economic Times (@economictimes)

“A group of 8-10 men started verbally abusing me and also physically assaulted me and the man who was accompanying me. The accused also pulled my burqa and clothes as I struggled to save myself. They also recorded a video of the attack and threatened to make the incident viral,” she told the Times of India.

Muzaffarnagar City DSP Raju Kumar confirmed the sequence of events. He stated that “the incident occurred between approximately 4 and 4:30 pm. A Hindu man from Bhavan area and a Muslim woman from Khalapar, both associated with Utkarsh Small Finance Bank, were returning from Sujroo after collecting a loan installment. They were stopped and assaulted by some locals in Darzi Wali Gali. Six accused have been arrested so far. We have also taken cognizance of the video. Further arrests will be made as more people are identified from the video. Strict legal action will follow” reported the Times of India.

The police identified the accused as Sartaj, Shadab, Mohammad Umar, Arsh, Shoaib and Shami, all residents of Muzzaffarnagar, as per a report in the Indian Express.

An FIR was registered on April 12, under Sections 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of public peace), 191(2) (rioting), and 74 (assault with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against unidentified men (later identified by the police).

Following the arrests, visuals emerged from the police station showing the accused men limping as they were escorted by officers. Several users on social media, however, alleged the limping appeared “staged,” raising further questions about the handling of the case.

Bengaluru Park harassment: ‘Remove Your Burqa,’ Man yells at Muslim girl with Hindu boy

In another deeply troubling incident—this time in Bengaluru—a Muslim girl and a Hindu boy were harassed in a public park by a man outraged by their interfaith relationship. The man demanded the girl remove her hijab and filmed the couple, subjecting them to public humiliation. The video, once circulated online, triggered public alarm and prompted the police to intervene.

The footage, now widely shared, shows the couple being confronted by the man, who points out their religious identities and insists the girl take off her hijab. As the girl and boy repeatedly plead with him to let them go, he continues his tirade, ignoring their distress.

“Remove your burqa,” the man is heard shouting. He harasses the couple persistently, referring to the hijab as “Muslim attire” and demanding the girl reveal her name. He also confronts the boy, questioning how he could date a Muslim girl.

In the video—believed to be the second such moral policing case in the city in a week—the man continues to record them and threatens further confrontation.

“Community members are coming, stay here,” he tells the girl, implying the imminent arrival of others to escalate the situation. Despite her repeated pleas for him to stop, the harassment continues. The exact time and location of the incident remain unverified. The video was posted on platform X and tagged to the Bengaluru Police Commissioner. Authorities say they are investigating and have requested the individual who uploaded the video to provide more details to aid legal action.

Another Moral policing in Bengaluru

Radical Islamist goon abused muslim Women and showed that Dravidian guy his rightful place

No matter whether you are Dravidian, Aryan, Northie, Southie, secular or whatever, still you are a Kafir and will be treated accordingly pic.twitter.com/hVld1U3Y4A

— DSH MAX (@team_dsh_1) April 14, 2025

In another portion of the video, the man berates the girl using religious arguments, questioning her behaviour and demanding she stop wearing her burqa in public when meeting someone from another faith.

The unidentified Men asks, repeatedly pressuring her to remove her hijab while saying that hijab belongs to our community and scolding her for going on dates in “Muslim attire.” As the boy attempts to make a phone call, the man warns him that his associates are on their way to “teach them a lesson.” When the couple tries to walk away, he blocks their path again, reiterating that others will soon arrive.

In response to the viral clip, the police have officially acknowledged the incident and are working to gather more information to ensure legal proceedings against the perpetrator.

Hii this is police sub inspector from kothanuru police station…
Plz provide your contact number or DM for my num 9986535381,
It will help us resolve things please

— KOTHANURU BCP ಕೊತ್ತನೂರು ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆ (@kothanurups) April 15, 2025

Related

Muslim Women’s Quest for Gender-Just Laws

Uttarakhand’s UCC seen through a Muslim women’s political perspective

Destroying the basic standards of legislation- the Uttarakhand Model of UCC

The post Extremists assaulted Muslim woman; hijab stripped of in broad daylight in Bengaluru and Muzaffarnagar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a recent case involving Naziya Ansari and her husband Mohammad Umar brought further attention to the rights of individuals in interfaith marriages. The Allahabad High Court criticised the Uttar Pradesh Police for handing over 21-year-old Naziya to her uncle against her will. Naziya and Umar had filed a petition alleging police misconduct after Naziya claimed she ran away from home and married Umar in Hyderabad. Despite her statement to a magistrate expressing fear for her life if sent back to her uncle, the police disregarded her plea and threatened Umar with arrest.

The court emphasised that adults have the constitutional right to marry and live with whom they choose, protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty. The court criticized the magistrate for failing to protect Naziya and held the police accountable for not ensuring her safety.

“Even if the petitioners have not married each other, no one can restrain an adult from going anywhere that he/she likes, staying with a person of his/her choice, or solemnizing marriage according to his/her will or wish. This is a right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution”

The court ordered the quashing of the FIR against Umar, directed that Naziya be allowed to live freely without interference from her uncle, and made it clear that the police officers would be personally responsible if any harm befell her. The court also underscored the importance of protecting human life from honor killings or any form of harm due to societal or familial pressures by stating that the magistrate ought to have also taken adequate measures to secure the woman’s safety.

“Honour killing in such matters is not an unknown phenomenon and it is very important to save a human life from extinction on account of misguided emotions or notions of morality. This issue is quite independent of the issue of matrimony that the parties have entered into. No citizen can kill another for holding a different opinion and it is the foremost duty of the State to preserve human life,” 

The order may be read here:

Mixed, conflicting and contentious judgments

While this judgment is indeed a step in the right direction, interfaith couples in India continue to face significant challenges due to conflicting judicial rulings and societal attitudes. The legal landscape is fraught with inconsistencies, which often result in a lack of uniform protection for interfaith couples. For instance, despite the strong stance taken in Naziya Ansari’s case, other judgments have upheld restrictions on interfaith relationships under various state laws, such as the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. This act, and similar laws in other states, require couples to follow stringent procedures for religious conversion and marriage, often leading to harassment and legal obstacles. Additionally, some courts have interpreted these laws in ways that effectively criminalize interfaith relationships unless they conform to prescribed legal norms.

These conflicting judgments create a precarious environment for interfaith couples, who find themselves at the mercy of varying legal interpretations and local enforcement practices. For instance, the Allahabad High Court itself has delivered decisions both supporting and restricting interfaith relationships, contributing to an unpredictable legal environment. Such inconsistency not only undermines the rule of law but also exacerbates the social stigma and threats faced by interfaith couples. Despite progressive judgments like that of Naziya Ansari, the struggle for interfaith couples is far from over. They continue to navigate a legal system that can alternately protect or endanger them, depending on the interpretation of the law by individual courts.

In light of this, CJP’s research team will point out some conflicting judgments that highlight the ongoing struggle for consistent legal protection for interfaith couples in India.

Contrasting Judgments by the Allahabad High Court

Justice Renu Agarwal’s rulings exemplify the prioritization of religious and customary laws over constitutional protections. In February 2024, she denied protection to a Muslim woman in a live-in relationship with a Hindu man, ruling that the woman was committing ‘Zina’ and ‘Haram’ according to Shariat Law. This decision underscores how subjective interpretations of personal laws can supersede the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 14 (equality before the law) of the Indian Constitution.

The order can be read here:

In January 2024, the Allahabad High Court dismissed petitions from eight Hindu-Muslim couples based on non-compliance with the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. This act requires prior notice and approval for religious conversion, imposing stringent bureaucratic hurdles for interfaith marriages. The court’s insistence on compliance with these laws further complicates the legal process for couples wishing to marry under their personal beliefs and choices. In Ayesha Parveen’s case, the court dismissed a petition due to non-compliance with the anti-conversion law, despite the couple’s willingness to practice their respective religions post-marriage. In the case of Farah B Kumar v. State of UP, the bench of Justice Saral Srivastava again rejected the protection plea of the interfaith couple filed by one Farha on exactly the same ground as it mentioned in the above judgment. Similarly, in Nagma Bano’s case, the court rejected a petition for protection despite claims of forced remarriage, emphasizing societal norms over individual rights and safety.

A detailed analysis of these petitions can be read at Sabrang India.

The Allahabad High Court’s refusal to grant police protection to interfaith couples has faced significant criticism. These decisions often hinge on non-compliance with anti-conversion laws and the lack of marriage registration proof, leading to a discriminatory practice. Couples from the same religion without marriage certificates often receive protection, while interfaith couples do not. This practice directly contradicts Supreme Court guidelines, as emphasized in Devu G Nair vs State of Kerala, which mandate immediate interim protection for vulnerable couples, including interfaith, inter-caste, and LGBTQ+ couples. The Allahabad High Court’s rulings have been criticised for undermining these constitutional protections and emphasizing social morality over individual rights.

The Allahabad High Court in the case of the Salamat Ansari vs. State of UP case protected an interfaith couple, recognizing their fundamental right to live together, even after the woman had converted to her partner’s religion. This decision relied on Supreme Court judgments that upheld the right to personal liberty and freedom of choice in relationships, highlighting a more progressive approach in protecting interfaith couples’ rights. This judgment overturned Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others and Priyanshi @ Km. Shamren and others Vs. State of U.P. and Another which held that, conversion only for the purpose of marriage is invalid.

The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, requires prior notice and approval for conversion, making it difficult for interfaith couples to get married without facing legal and social obstacles. On March 13, the Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Gajendra Kumar clarified that the issue was about individual liberty and the right to choose a partner, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that the petitioners were adults who married of their own free will under the Special Marriage Act, referencing the Salamat Ansari vs. State of UP case, which upheld the right to choose a partner irrespective of religion as part of the fundamental right under Article 21. Additionally, it cited Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, differentiating between heinous crimes and private disputes, justifying the quashing of the criminal proceeding.

In the case of Razia and Another v. State of U.P. and Others, the court ruled that noted that interfaith couples are free to live together in a live-in relationship, and their parents cannot interfere. However, in the recent case of Shilpa Alias Shikha and Another vs. State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home Department, Lucknow and Others the court held that Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 prohibits live-in relationships between couples of different religions unless they undergo religious conversion according to the law. The court highlighted that the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, applies not only to marriages but also to relationships resembling marriage or live-in relationships. The court therefore, ruled that the FIR could not be quashed as the couple had not solemnized their marriage in accordance with the law.

Both the orders can be read here:

LiveLaw reported on May 31, 2024 that the Allahabad High Court has emphasized that interfaith couples can marry under the Special Marriage Act (SMA) without the need for religious conversion. In a recent case, the court granted protection to an interfaith live-in couple seeking to marry under the SMA, highlighting the judiciary’s role in safeguarding personal liberty and life choices against societal and familial pressures. The court directed the couple to demonstrate their bona fides by taking steps to solemnize their marriage under SMA and submit documentary proof via a supplementary affidavit.

How this is problematic

The Allahabad High Court’s conflicting judgments regarding interfaith relationships create a problematic and unpredictable legal environment for couples seeking protection of their rights. These inconsistencies not only undermine the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and equality before the law but also perpetuate discrimination against interfaith couple. Firstly, the court’s denial of protection to interfaith couples in live-in relationships on the grounds of Islamic customary law and non-compliance with anti-conversion laws raises serious concerns. The court in these cases prioritized customary and religious laws over constitutional protections, which is problematic because it allows subjective interpretations of personal laws to supersede fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The insistence on compliance with anti-conversion laws adds an additional layer of legal and bureaucratic hurdles, effectively denying protection to couples who wish to marry under their personal beliefs and choices.

Secondly, the rejection of police protection for interfaith couples based on these interpretations violates their constitutional rights, including Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 14 (equality before the law). Previous Supreme Court rulings, such as in Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India and Shafin Jahan vs. Ashokan K.M, uphold the right to marry a person of one’s choice as integral to Article 21. The Allahabad High Court’s decisions often contradict these precedents, prioritizing social morality over constitutional protections. This discriminatory practice provides protection to same-faith couples with marriage certificates while imposing additional hurdles on interfaith couples, exposing them to potential harassment and violence. However, the Allahabad High Court’s decisions contradict these precedents, prioritizing social and religious norms over individual autonomy and constitutional rights.

Moreover, the inconsistency in judicial decisions creates confusion and uncertainty for interfaith couples. Couples face the risk of harassment, intimidation, and violence due to the lack of legal protection and clear guidelines. The pattern of rejection in the Allahabad High Court, especially under judges like Justice Renu Agarwal, who have consistently denied protection to unmarried couples, underscores the bias against interfaith relationships.

The court’s insistence on religious conversion as a prerequisite for protection further exposes couples to privacy violations and threats to their safety. This requirement not only disregards the secular nature of the Indian Constitution but also perpetuates discrimination against minority communities and vulnerable individuals.

Furthermore, these conflicting judgments do not align with Supreme Court guidelines that mandate immediate interim protection for vulnerable couples, including interfaith and inter-caste couples. The Allahabad High Court’s decisions undermine the principles of justice, fairness, and non-discrimination that are fundamental to a democratic society governed by the rule of law.

The way forward: building a bridge of understanding

The battle for legal acceptance of interfaith marriages in India is far from over. However, the path forward is clear. By prioritizing a consistent and rights-based approach, India can move towards a future where love transcends religious boundaries. Here’s what needs to happen:

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Allahabad High Court, must adopt a unified interpretation of laws concerning interfaith relationships. This demands prioritizing fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, such as individual liberty and freedom of religion. Courts must move away from subjective interpretations of religious laws that can supersede these fundamental rights.

The constitutionality of anti-conversion laws in several Indian states deserves thorough examination. These laws, often used to harass and intimidate interfaith couples, raise concerns about their compatibility with the secular fabric of the Indian Constitution. A Supreme Court review is essential to ensure these laws don’t infringe on individual rights and the freedom to choose one’s faith.

Clear and unambiguous guidelines for police intervention in interfaith relationship disputes are crucial. Police training programs must emphasize the rights of individuals in interfaith relationships and the importance of upholding the rule of law. This will prevent instances of police bias and ensure the safety of vulnerable couples.

Conclusion

To summarise, the key takeaway is the inconsistency in the court’s decisions. On one hand, the court upholds the constitutional right to marry whomever one chooses. On the other hand, it prioritizes religious laws and anti-conversion legislation, creating hurdles for interfaith couples. This inconsistency exposes couples to legal uncertainty, potential discrimination by law enforcement, and societal pressures.

Moving forward, a unified approach based on fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution is crucial. The judiciary needs to prioritize individual liberty and freedom of religion. Anti-conversion laws need scrutiny to ensure they don’t infringe on individual rights. Clear police guidelines and social awareness campaigns promoting tolerance are also essential.

The battle for legal acceptance of interfaith marriages in India requires a multi-pronged approach. By prioritizing a consistent, rights-based approach, India can create a future where love transcends religious boundaries.

CJP’S fight against the Anti Conversion Laws

In December 2020, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of law anti conversion laws which are based on unfounded fears dubbed ‘love-jihad’. These laws violate personal liberty, freedom of choice, privacy, and conscience by restricting inter-faith marriages.

‘Love-jihad’ refers to interfaith marriages where a Muslim man is accused of courting a Hindu woman to convert her to Islam. Ministers from Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, and Karnataka publicly vowed to introduce laws against ‘love-jihad’.

CJP’s petition referenced the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., affirming the fundamental right to change religion, as well as cases such as KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), and Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala (2019), which emphasized the importance of privacy, choice, and religious beliefs in upholding dignity.

The petition was heard by a 3-Judge Bench led by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, along with Justices V. Ramasubramanian and A.S. Bopanna, who issued notices to the concerned states.

Subsequently, Himachal Pradesh (2019) and Madhya Pradesh (2020) enacted Anti-Conversion laws similar to those in Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. In February 2021, CJP applied to include these enactments in their original petition, which was granted by Chief Justice Bobde’s Bench.

On January 16, 2023, a 3-Judge Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, with Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, began hearing the petition as it remained pending.

While CJP’s petition is still pending, Gujarat (2021), Haryana (2022), and Karnataka (2022) enacted their own Anti-Conversion laws. However, the Gujarat High Court stayed several sections of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act on August 19th, 2021.

Related:

Allahabad High Court quashes FIR against couple accused of ‘conversion’ accusations, upholds freedom of choice

Allahabad HC: Repeated rejection of police protection pleas of interfaith couples, here’s why this is problematic

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

Allahabad HC denies protection to inter-faith couple observing that “Muslims cannot claim right to live-in relationship as it is against their customary law”

Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh High Courts deliver two contradictory judgments on interfaith marriage without conversion under Special Marriage Act (SMA)

The post Love vs Law: Allahabad HC verdict offers hope, but inconsistencies persist appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the month of May this year, two starkly contradictory judgements have been delivered on the interpretation of Special Marriage Act (SMA) and personal laws which can have significant bearing on interfaith couples intending to marry under SMA and seeking police protection. On May 27, the Jabalpur bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court gave a verdict rejecting the police protection plea of the interfaith couple facing threats from family members and intending to marry under SMA. The verdict written by Justice G.S. Ahluwalia said that under Muslim personal law, a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman would be invalid/irregular (fasid) unless a Hindu woman converts to Islam (or Christianity or Judaism) and the provision under Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act provides that “if the parties are not within prohibited relationship then only marriage can be performed.” Thus, the court interpreted invalid/irregular marriage (fasid) as prohibited relationship under Section 4 of the SMA. Notably, in this case, the man and woman had filed an affidavit submitting that neither of them intends to convert their faith and they will continue to follow their existing faith.

On May 14, the Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma delivered a separate order on the petition of the interfaith couple seeking police protection plea to avoid unwanted interference by the relatives and directed the police to ensure that police protection is provided to the interfaith couple. The couple had prayed to the court that they intend to marry each other under Special Marriage Act (SMA) without converting their religion. Furthermore, the petitioners claimed that they are unable move freely and complete their marriage registration process under SMA due to threats faced by them from the relatives and anti-social elements.

The prosecution had opposed their plea, arguing that the couples got married as per marriage agreement, which is not recognised in law, and therefore, no protection can be given. While the judge agreed with the prosecution that “marriage through agreement is definitely invalid in law”, she also said that “However, law does not prevent the parties from applying for court marriage under the Special Marriage Committee, without conversion.” Thus, the court effectively provided an interim relief to the petitioners who were living in live-in relationship as husband and wife by providing police protection to them even as it asked the petitioners to solemnise their marriage under SMA by the next date of hearing, i.e., July 10. The judgement made it clear that interfaith couples can marry under Special Marriage Act, without relying on any personal law, provided they do not intend to convert their religion.

The problematic interpretation of Madhya Pradesh High Court regarding SMA and personal laws

The Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) was enacted with the specific purpose of allowing interfaith and interreligious couples to marry and register their marriage as such without relying on the parties’ respective personal laws, which are broadly speaking conservative and restrictive, and directly or indirect aimed at ensuring endogamy. The statement of objects and reasons for the SMA Bill had noted that the purpose of the Bill is “to provide a special form of marriage which can be taken advantage of by any person in India and by all Indian nationals in foreign countries irrespective of the faith which either party to the marriage may profess.” Resultantly, the MP High Court verdict flies in the face of the objectives of the SMA, and furthermore, its interpretation of Section 4 of the SMA is flawed as reported by ThePrint. Section 4(d) of the SMA states that special marriage can be solemnised under the Act, provided that “the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship”. It also explains that “where a custom governing at least one of the party’s permits of a marriage between them, such marriage may be solemnized, notwithstanding that they are within the degrees of prohibited relationship”. Thus, the provision clearly reveals its facilitative and liberal nature unlike the restrictive one interpreted by the court. Significantly, speaking with the lawyers on the subject ThePrint found that “prohibited relationship” as mentioned in Section 4 of the Act has nothing to do with “difference in religion” as interpreted by the court, but it is instead aimed at restricting marriages among blood relatives or consanguine relationships. Thus, the court has wrongly interpreted “prohibited relation”, which does not include inter-religious relationships.

Moreover, the court has heavy relied on Muslim personal law to reject the petitioners’ plea and conclude that interfaith couple cannot marry under SMA under the woman converts to Islam. The court’s reasoning in this case is based on Muslim personal law, which classifies marriage into three distinct categories, namely, valid (sahih), invalid (fasid), and void (batil). While batil marriages are unlawful ab-initio and irremediable, fasid marriage are invalid/irregular due to extraneous circumstances and can be remedied to make it valid. In the present case, the only way to remedy the invalid marriage under Muslim personal law would have been for the girl to convert to Islam (or Christianity or Judaism), but this cannot take place, as the couple had already informed the court about their decision to not change their religion. As a result, the court concluded that marriage under personal law would not be possible in the present case, and given the court’s interpretation about Section 4 of the SMA, it noted that the petition cannot be maintained as the valid marriage cannot take place due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Muslim personal law and SMA. The judgement reads, “marriage under Special Marriage Act would not legalise the marriage which otherwise is prohibited under personal law. Section 4 of Special Marriage Act provides that if the parties are not within prohibited relationship then only marriage can be performed.”

The verdict cites Mulla Principles of Mahomedan Law to underline the issue of prohibited marriage due to “Difference of religion” in the personal law and quotes from multiple editions of Mullah to underscore that “(1) A Mahomedan male may contract a valid marriage not only with a Mahomedan woman, but also with a Kitabia, that is, a Jewess or a Christian, but not with an idolatress or a fire-worshipper. A marriage, however, with an idolatress or a fire-worshipper, is not void, but merely irregular.” It further states that “since Hindus are idol worshippers, which includes worship of physical images/statues through offering of flowers, adornment, etc., it is clear that the marriage of a Hindu female with a Muslim male is not a regular or valid (sahih) marriage, but merely an irregular (fasid) marriage.” Additionally, the order also states that as per the Muslim personal law, fasid marriage has no legal effect before consummation, and even after consummation, it creates no legal rights of inheritance between husband and wife.

Apart from undue and excessive reliance on the personal law, the judge also rejected the argument raised by the petitioners that since they want to perform marriage under the Special Marriage Act, Nikah would not be required under the personal law. Moreover, it did not address the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. (Writ Petition (Crl.) 208 of 2004), which the petitioners relied on to seek police protection.

As the court dismissed the petition it said that “As per Mahomedan law, the marriage of a Muslim boy with a girl who is an idolatress or a fire-worshipper, is not a valid marriage. Even if the marriage is registered under the Special Marriage Act, the marriage would be no more a valid marriage and it would be an irregular (fasid) marriage.” Curiously, it also brought up the issue of live-in relationship and said that “It is not the case of petitioners that in case if marriage is not performed, then they are still interested to live in live-in relationship. It is also not the case of petitioners that petitioner No.1 would accept Muslim religion.”

The Madhya Pradesh High Court judgement may be read here:

The Allahabad High Court judgement may be read here:

Related:

Allahabad HC: Repeated rejection of police protection pleas of interfaith couples, here’s why this is problematic | CJP

Allahabad High Court quashes FIR against couple accused of ‘conversion’ accusations, upholds freedom of choice | CJP

CJP, other rights groups challenge Maharashtra Govt GR setting up a Committee to “monitor inter-faith marriages” | CJP

The post Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh High Courts deliver two contradictory judgments on interfaith marriage without conversion under Special Marriage Act (SMA) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Notably, the FIR was registered at Bannadevi police station in Aligarh on December 5 last year, charging the petitioners under IPC Sections 379 (theft), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 366 (kidnapping or inducing a woman to compel her marriage), and Section 3 and 5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

Interestingly, the FIR invokes Section 3 and 5 (1) of the anti-conversion law, which relates to prohibition of conversion from one religion to another by fraudulent means and the punishment for the same, respectively, despite the fact that in the present case the petitioner had not converted her religion. This further adds weight to the claims about excessive abuse of Uttar Pradesh (UP)’s draconian anti-conversion law for punishing consenting interfaith couples.

This state law is under a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court of India. Citizens for Justice and Peace is the lead petitioner. In its first petition challenging the anti-conversion laws of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court had issued notice in January 2021, Thereafter, CJP challenged Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh laws were also added in this challenge. An additional petition was thereafter filed after the Karnataka and Haryana laws were passed in 2022 and the amendment to the Gujarat law was also enacted. In January 2023, CJP filed an additional petition challenging the anti-conversion laws of Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka. Hence the anti-conversion laws of nine BJP ruled states are presently under the challenge in the Supreme Court, in which CJP is the lead petitioner.

Facts of the case

The petitioner by the name of Deepanshi had married her Muslim partner (petitioner no.2) under the Special Marriage Act (SMA, 1954), and since leaving her natal home she had been living with him. After the FIR was registered against them, the couple moved to the Allahabad High Court requesting the court for a direction to be issued to police to not arrest them with regard to the charges filed in the FIR.

In its March 4, 2024 order, the Allahabad HC after hearing both the parties recorded that the petitioners are “major” and have married of their own “free will” under Special Marriage Act, and possesses a valid marriage registration certificate. The bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Gajendra Kumar further observed that the statement of the petitioner was yet to be recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, and directed the investigation officer to produce the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, to record her statement under Section 164. Importantly, the bench decided to take the woman’s statement from Prayagraj after the interfaith couple alleged threat to their lives in Aligarh. Directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate to send the statement in a sealed cover, it restrained the police from arresting the couple until next date of hearing and asked the parties to cooperate in the meantime.

When the bench re-convened on March 13, it analysed the statement of the woman petitioner, in which she alleged that her father had beaten her up, and accused the police of filing a false and concocted FIR, noting that none of them had changed their religion. The bench after taking note of her desire to stay with her husband, noted that “the offence as alleged against the petitioners is not made out as victim had left her home in order to live with the petitioner no.2.” It relied on the ratio of Salamat Ansari vs. State of UP, in which the division bench of Allahabad HC had held the right to choose a partner irrespective of creed or religion an integral part of the fundamental right under Article 21. Further accentuating the point, the court reiterating the same judgement noted that “an individual on attaining majority, is statutorily conferred with the right to choose a partner, which if denied would not only affect his/her human right, but also his/her right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Additionally, citing Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, the bench justified the quashing of criminal proceeding in this case. Pertinently, Gian Singh judgement distinguishes between the categories of heinous crimes like rape and murder, and offences which are more of a private nature, like dowry, family disputes, and commercial issues.

The court finally quashed the FIR registered against the couples, pointing out that both the parties were major and the woman had left her home out of free will to live with her husband. It also noted that marriage had been solemnised and no conversion took place for the purpose of marriage.

This judgement assumes significance for the interfaith couples in UP as increasing number of false cases continue to be filed against them in the name of conversion and love jihad, especially after the implementation of UP’s anti conversion law.

The judgement may be read here:

Bumpy ride for interfaith couples at the Allahabad High Court?

While the present judgement has come as a relief to many interfaith couples, such jurisprudence has not been consistent at the Allahabad High Court. Before Salamat Ansari judgement was delivered, the court had on two previous occasions failed to protect the couples from the interference of the family, by holding that conversion by the girl in the respective case was void and invalid, as she did not know about the basic tenets of Islam nor did she show any faith in the aforementioned religion. Essentially, the court instead of granting protection to the couple, alleged that the conversion seems to have taken place for the sole purpose of marriage, and as such the request of the couple cannot be granted for protection.

Thus, in the case of Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra vs. State of UP, the court went into the question of determining whether that conversion was valid or not, and finally determining that it was invalid, it declined to grant the protection to the couple, even though the couple had voluntarily asked for the police protection. The bench of Surya Prakash Kesarwani in the case had wondered, “Whether conversion of religion of a Hindu girl at the instance of a Muslim boy, without any knowledge of Islam or faith and belief in Islam and merely for the purpose of Marriage (Nikah) is valid?” Therefore, instead of determining the plea for what it was, i.e., a request for police protection, the court went into tangential terrain to determine who is real Muslim or practitioner of Islam, in order to verify whether the conversion was valid or not.

The judgement may be read here:

The same judgement was relied upon in the case of Priyanshi @ Km Shamreen vs. State of UP, in which the girl had converted from Islam to Hinduism just one month before her marriage, and the couple were requesting for a direction “not to interfere with their peaceful married life by adopting coercive measures.”

The order noted that “The Court has perused the record in question and found that the first petitioner has converted her religion on 29.6.2020 and just after one month, they have solemnized their marriage on 31.7.2020, which clearly reveals to this Court that the said conversion has taken place only for the purpose of marriage”. On the basis of this reasoning, the court refused to grant any direction and dismissed the petition.

The judgement may be read here:

This problematic understanding of the court in linking conversion with marriage has already been highlighted by us in the piece on the Allahabad High Court’s repeated refusal to granted police protection to interfaith couples.

However, the Allahabad High Court has also stood by interfaith couples in the past. Delivering a progressive verdict in the case of Salamat Ansari vs. State of UP in November 2020, the bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Pankaj Naqvi had observed that the judgements delivered in Noor Jahan and Priyanshi were “not laying good law.” As in the present case, the couple in Salamat Ansari had also requested that FIR registered against them under Sections 363, 366, 352, 506 of IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act be quashed and no arrest takes place by the police. Significantly, in this case, the girl had even converted her religion, but that did not stop the bench from granting the relief to the petitioners, perhaps because then the UP’s anti-conversion law did not come into picture.

In Ansari case, the court relied on a number of Supreme Court judgements to grant the couple the requested relief and quashed the FIR.

The bench citing the precedents set in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M, Lata Singh v State of U.P, Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India, KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, and NandaKumar vs. State of Kerala, noted in its order that “We do not see Priyanka Kharwar and Salamat 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 over a year…the Constitutional Courts in particular are enjoined to uphold the life and liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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. We fail 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 relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together.”

The judgment may be read here:

As a constitutional court, the Allahabad High Court had made it clear that no infringement of fundamental rights can be permitted, even by the State, especially in matters of personal liberty and right to live with a person of one’s choice.

Similarly, the present judgement quashing the FIR against Aligarh couple is an empowering verdict, and in line with progressive judicial precedents, effectively strengthening the constitutional protection granted to all citizens.

Related:

Allahabad HC: Repeated rejection of police protection pleas of interfaith couples, here’s why this is problematic

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

CJP’s amended petition allowed, CJP also challenges ‘love jihad’ laws of 5 more states

The post By quashing the FIR against an interfaith couple accused of “conversion”, the Allahabad High Court restores jurisprudence on a constitutional path, upholds freedom of choice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A close analysis of the judgements of the court has revealed a telling pattern. The married couples whose applications for police protection got rejected were either in an inter-faith relationship or those who did not have a valid marriage registration proof. It is also crucial to note that couples who were from the same faith or religion, as far as they had completed their marriage registration process, even if they did not have a valid marriage certificate, faced no such hurdles in getting police protection. This dichotomy has resulted in a situation where inter-caste couples within the same religion are readily able to secure the necessary protection from the courts while their counterparts who come from different religions are finding it difficult to secure police protection for their safety and liberty.

The culture of honour killing is not uncommon within conservative Indian families and the lack of protection for interfaith couples in the face of real-life threats not only affect their right to life and personal liberty but also their right to peaceful marriage, uninterrupted from external forces.

In the judgements delivered by Justice Saral Srivastava in January and the March 5 judgment of Justice Renu Agarwal, the judges have cited non-compliance with the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 as one of the reasons for denying police protection to the interfaith couples. Prior to the implementation of this law, which was brought in to check what the Hindu-right calls “Love Jihad”, interfaith couples were still able to secure the protection. Though there are also other reasons for denying the protection, we are witnessing a growing trend where Allahabad HC is asking couples to first comply with the Conversion Act of 2021, and solemnize their marriage and register for the marriage certificates in compliance with the Act, in order to secure the protection of the law.

Citizens for Justice and Peace is the lead petitioner that has challenged the 2021 Uttar Pradesh Anti-Conversion law and a similar law passed in eight other states. The first petition challenging the anti-conversion laws of was filed in December 2020, which argued against the constitutionality of these laws enacted by the states of Uttar Pradesh (which initially issued it through an ordinance before enacting the Act), Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh (WP Criminal Nos 428/2020). In December 2021, it filed another petition, this time challenging the similar laws passed by Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Haryana and Karnataka (WP Criminal Nos 14/2023). CJP argued that the said laws are violative of Article 14 (due process), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 25 (freedom of conscience and religion), and therefore unconstitutional.

The laws were challenged as excessively restrictive on the constitutional provisions related to fundamental rights on the following issues: autonomy of women and both partners on the issue of free choice, right to privacy, freedom to practice and propagate religion, secularism, and for creating gender stereotypes and excessive criminalisation. These laws essentially “aim” to restrict religious conversion for the sole purpose of marriage or vice versa, but their implementation reveals that they have been weaponised to target interfaith couples and marriages, thereby restricting the ability to marry a person of one’s choice and jeopardising the security of such partners.

In the meantime, the number of states which started enacting such laws grew as the petitions challenging these laws have been kept pending in the Supreme Court with attempts made by CJP for an urgent hearing and stay on the application of these laws. T Notably, CJP’s writ petition challenging UP’s anti-conversion law was last listed on April 25, 2023, almost a year ago.

Let us look at some of the cases to understand the implications for the fundamental rights of persons living in Uttar Pradesh.

Case Study

On January 10, 2024, the Allahabad HC bench of Justice Saral Srivastava dismissed a petition filed by one Ayesha Parveen for securing police protection. The judgement noted that, “It is a case of interfaith marriage as petitioner no.2 follows Muslim religion whereas petitioner no.1 is Hindu. In the instant case, there is no compliance of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, therefore, solemnisation of marriage between petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 is not in accordance with law.” Thus, the court dismissed their petition. The judgement in the case does not cite any particular provision(s) of the law, which is jurisprudentially unsustainable. It remains completely silent on the issue whether conversion law would kick in even if the inter faith couples did not want to get converted and were willing to practice their religions as before the marriage. But even if one of the partners was willing to convert their religion, this does not prevent courts from granting protection to such couples in the interim.

The judgement maybe read here:

Recently, in the case of Devu G Nair vs State of Kerala the Supreme Court issued guidelines in which it asked courts to stay away from moralising the issue of inter-faith, inter-caste, and LGBTQ+ couples and emphasised on providing immediate interim protection to such couples. The relevant portion of the guidelines mentioned that, “The court must acknowledge that some intimate partners may face social stigma and a neutral stand of the law would be detrimental to the fundamental freedoms of the appellant. Therefore, a court while dealing with a petition for police protection by intimate partners on the grounds that they are a same sex, transgender, inter-faith or inter-caste couple must grant an ad-interim measure, such as immediately granting police protection to the petitioners, before establishing the threshold requirement of being at grave risk of violence and abuse…”.

The Supreme Court judgement may be read here:

The recent Allahabad HC rulings denying such protection to the interfaith couples fly in the face of the recent SC guidelines, but even before these guidelines were issued, the law had already established that privacy and safety of couples is of paramount importance and social mores should not come in the way of the fundamental rights of citizens. Through the judicial precedents set in Shakti Vahini vs Union of India and Shafin Jahan v Ashokan K.M the Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21, within the exclusive domain of an individual, and is a part of the core zone of privacy and individual liberty, which is inviolable. Given such precent, UP’s law on conversion itself remains precarious and the petitions challenging the validity of various conversion laws across several states have been pending in the SC.

On January 11, 2024, the bench of Justice Saral Srivastava again rejected the protection plea of the interfaith couple filed by one Farha on exactly the same ground as it mentioned in its January 10 judgement. The judgements look identical except for the fact that the petitioners have changed. In both these judgments, it put a caveat, stating that “it is open to the petitioners to prefer fresh writ petition in case they solemnise marriage after following the due procedure of law.”

The judgement maybe read here:

But it is precisely the compliance with the provisions of the UP’s Draconian conversion law that is putting interfaith couples on the edge. The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 requires the person who before or after the marriage intends to convert or converts his/her religion, to send a prior notice informing about her decision to convert to District Magistrate (DM) or Additional District Magistrate 60 days in advance, stating that the conversion is not forced, and is completely out of freewill. This is followed by an inquiry ordered by the DM and the publication of the particular details of the person who intends to convert on the notice board of the DM, and then if any objections are raised to the conversion it will have to be noted by the DM. This very process scares away the partners who intend to convert, as all the particular details including permanent address and present place of the stay will be publicly displayed on the DM’s wall, for anybody to harass the couples, further endangering their safety and security. Pertinently, the burden of proof is reversed and if any accusation of unfair conversion is alleged, the accused has to defend herself that the conversion was not unfair or influenced by extraneous factors.

The UP’s (anti)conversion law may be read here:

Even in other cases, where we are not sure about the religion of the couples, the court is dismissing the petitions for the security of couples merely on the ground that there is no valid proof of marriage available. In one such case, the same bench declined the request of Kajal Rani for the police protection on January 16, 2024, stating that “there is no proof of marriage of petitioners on record, therefore, the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted”. It has been observed that the bench is consistently asking such petitioners to file fresh petitions with a valid proof of marriage.

The judgement maybe read here:

There are also other grounds on the basis of which the HC is declining the petitions, including on the ground that the HC has no jurisdiction to provide such protection, but that does not seem to be a valid argument. On January 10, 2024, the bench declined to grant any security to the petitioner Khushboo Pandey, arguing that is it the father of the petitioner who is interfering with the married life of petitioners, and since he is staying in Satna, Madhya Pradesh, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the HC to grant protection to the couples who are staying in Banda, Uttar Pradesh! The fact that both the couples are living in Banda, where the UP police can provide protection to the couple is completely out of consideration for the bench.

The judgement maybe read here:

Still another reason for the bench to refuse the protection to couples is the registration of FIR by or against the couples (the judgement does not readily help identify who has registered the FIR), which again is difficult to comprehend. While dismissing the plea for police protection in a petition filed by Smt. Sariya, the court recorded in its reason that “F.I.R. has been lodged in the present case. The instructions containing the details of F.I.R. is taken on record. In view of the above, the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed…”

The judgement maybe read here:

Selective protection by the Court

It is not the case that the bench is not granting police protection to couples in general, the same bench had been generous in granting protection to numerous couples who had either completed their marriage registration process and were awaiting marriage registration certificate or those who already possessed such certificate. The problem arises when the couples have not completed their marriage registration process or do not possess marriage registration certificate, this is most likely the interfaith couples, who due to the draconian nature of the UP’s conversion law have been facing hurdles in completing their marriage registration process. Thus, interfaith couples are most hit by the judicial neglect, which makes them doubly vulnerable, firstly at the hands of their families, and secondly at the hands of the law. Again, to reiterate the point, even if the UP’s anti-conversion law is draconian, the courts still cannot decline the protection to such couples on the ground that certificate is missing or registration process is not completed. The binding precedents and guidelines are beyond doubt in this regard.

Further analysis of Allahabad HC judgements reveals that even while granting police protection to couples, the court does not directly order the police to provide the security to the couples, rather the judgements provides that “In case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the concerned police authority, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.” This is despite the fact and acknowledgement by the HC that police authorities failed to intervene when the couples had first approached them. After the judgement, the police are most likely to provide the protection to avoid contempt, but the process still puts entire burden on the inter-caste/interfaith couples to slog after the authorities.

The representative order maybe read here:

Moralising judgements and dangerous interlinkage between conversion and marriage

On January 16 this year, the bench of Justice Saral Srivastava dismissed a petition for police protection filed by Nagma Bano and also imposed cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner. The petitioner in this case Nagma Bano was forcefully remarried after the dead of her first husband, and had been living with her partner since running away from her house. She argued that she never accepted the Nikahnama in which she was forcefully married, and therefore her live-in relationship with her partner should be secured from the outside interference, including from her husband Azad with to whom she was forcefully married.

The court while rejecting her petition noted that “…she has not accepted the Nikahnama, but the fact remains that the marriage was solemnized. The marriage may be illegal, but that issue may be determined by a Court of law. Merely, because petitioner no.1 denies that she had not accepted the Nikahnama does not prove the marriage to be illegal when it is not disputed that the petitioner no.1 was present and participated in the Nikahnama. She only disputes the fact that she has not accepted the Nikahnama.”

The same judgement records that “In the present case, till date the marriage of the petitioner no.1 with respondent no.10 is not declared illegal or dissolved as per law, no civilised society can accept the living of married partner with a third person, and the Court under law in such condition is not obliged to come to rescue of such person who is living in a society not as per the norms, ethics and values of the society.”

The judgement maybe read here:

Another pressuring concern that has arisen due to UP’s anti-conversion law is the vicious interlinkage drawn between conversion and marriage. As a matter of fact, conversion and marriage are two separate issues, dealing with separate spheres of life and there are specific laws for the same. But in line with the theory of Love Jihad, propagated by the Hindutva forces, they believe that interfaith marriages are essentially meant to convert peoples, more specifically, gullible Hindu girls being converted to Islam through fraudulent means. Apart from the theory being anti-women and irrational, it promotes a masculinist tendency and takes away the voice of women vis-à-vis their right to marry a person of their choice. UP’s anti-conversion law has been doing something similar.

The judgement delivered on March 5 this year by Justice Renu Agarwal of the Allahabad High takes the power of the anti-conversion law even further. While rejecting the plea of Mariya Zameel requesting the court order to stop interference in the peaceful living of the couples, the judgement recorded that the “Explanation 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, Conversion Act applies to relationship in the nature of marriage or live-in- relationship. Petitioners have not yet applied for conversion as per provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the Act, hence, the relationship of petitioners cannot be protected in contraventions of the provisions of law.”

In this case, the bench did not consider the marriage registration certificate issued by Arya Samaj, and the submission made by the petitioner that they have applied online for registration of their marriage before the competent authority, which is pending at their end. In a similar situation, had the couple been from same religion they would have faced no such issues, as the compliance with the conversion law will not be required.

Essentially, as per this interpretation by the Allahabad High Court, interfaith couples will not get any protection of the law unless conversion is first formalised under the UP’s (anti)conversion Act of 2021. This is despite the pendency of constitutional challenges to this law in the Supreme Court by Citizens for Justice and Peace and others.

The judgement maybe read here:

Conclusion

The dangerous implication and impact of the Allahabad High Court’s judgments coupled with the stringent provisions of the conversion law has virtually made it impossible for interfaith couples to secure any protection for their lives and liberty, severely affecting the effectiveness of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The fact that the high court of Allahabad is a constitutional court also means that these orders can impact other states, especially in states also ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that have brought in similar laws. While the Allahabad High Court certainly needs a course correction in the face of the latest guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, this is expected to be a long drawn legal battle as we will see the constitutional validity of these conversion laws being challenged and debated in the apex court of the country. Until then, , the precarity of interfaith couples will only going to increase in the absence of any safeguards, either from society or the higher judiciary.

Representative table analysing some of the orders:

Table of other similar orders:

(The author is part of the CJP’s Legal Research Team)

Related:

CJP, other rights groups challenge Maharashtra Govt GR setting up a Committee to “monitor inter-faith marriages”

CJP’s amended petition allowed, CJP also challenges ‘love jihad’ laws of 5 more states

Here’s how CJP tracks hate crimes against those who dare to love

The post Why are Allahabad HC’s orders refusing police protection to inter-faith couples, wrong in law and principle? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As provided by the first information report (FIR) lodged at Kotwali police station by one of the two women on Saturday evening, she had gone to Bhagat Singh Market along with a friend and a colleague to buy a birthday gift for another friend. “When we were inside a shop at the market, I called our friend by his name…for some suggestion, but the shop owners and those present there at the time raised an objection. They alleged that (he) influenced two hijab-clad women and started beating him. Soon, nearby shop owners also joined them and they removed our hijab and molested us. We somehow managed to free ourselves and filed the complaint at Kotwali police station the next day,” said one of the women whose statement was recorded by the police.

After the matter came to light, states Indian Express, Senior Superintendent of Police Rohit Singh Sajwan put personnel from four police stations and a team each from the Special Operations Group (SOG), surveillance and crime branch to investigate the case. In an unusually proactive stance, the Uttar Pradesh home department has also sought details of the incident.

“Based on the available CCTV footage, we identified 15 persons involved in the incident and arrested three, while special teams are conducting raids to nab the others. We will take strict action against those involved,” said the SSP.

Deputy Superintendent of Police (Kotwali) Amit Kumar Rai identified the arrested as Tanveer, Shan Mohammed and Uvesh alias Bhura. “We are hopeful that others will be arrested soon. A report under IPC sections 352 (assault),354 (assault or use of criminal force to any woman to outrage her modesty), 504 (insulting intentionally to provoke), 506 (criminal intimidation), 147 (rioting), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt and 295A (deliberate, malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) has been lodged in this connection,” DSP Rai added.

On May 15, Monday, activists of the Bhartiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) reportedly held a demonstration at Kotwali police station and demanded that all the accused be booked under the National Security Act (NSA) as they tried to disrupt the communal harmony in the town.

BJYM executive committee member Ankit Chaudhary, who led the demonstration, also met the SSP along with other leaders. “We will not let the offenders escape the law of the land. They deliberately…tried to create communal trouble in Meerut,” Chaudhary said.

Related:

Muslim women heckled, abused for being seen with Hindu men

The post 3 arrested for ‘beating man, molesting hijab-clad women with him: Meerut, UP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Maharashtra’s Minister for Women and Child Development, Mangal Prabhat Lodha, while speaking to the Indian Express, emphasised on regular meetings of ‘bhaichara committees’ at police stations and also spoke on the inter-faith marriage family co-ordination committee.

Lodha has said that the controversial interfaith faith committee is meeting regularly and will submit its first report by the end of this month. While speaking to Indian Express, Lodha said that the Committee has received complaints although he was unsure about the number of such complaints.

As of March 20, however, the Committee had not received even one complaint, since it was set up 3 months ago. This information was received by Samajwadi Party MLA Rais Shaikh who had written to the Maharashtra Women and Development Ministry, inquiring about the number of cases before the committee till date, and their details. R. Vimla, commissioner, women and child development, had confirmed that the committee has not received a single complaint.

This came just days after Lodha had announced during the Maharashtra Assembly session that the state of Maharashtra had over one lakh ‘love jihad’ cases. In response, another SP MLA Abu Asim  Azmi had filed a privilege motion against Lodha for making false claims in the House. Mangal Prabhat Lodha had also claimed last month that the 12-member committee had already received 152 complaints, which was obviously misleading information as it has now been revealed that the committee has not received a single complaint.

Shaikh is also a petitioner before the Bombay High Court challenging the Maharashtra government’s resolution (GR) setting up the interfaith marriage family coordination committee. The court has allowed the same to be filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Shaikh had filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court on March 9.

The petition stated that the government resolution is discriminatory against a particular religion and is violative of Articles 14 (right to equality), Article 15 (forbidding discrimination), 21 (right to life which includes the right to privacy), and 25. “That the assumption that adult women who choose and consent to marry someone from another faith need to be ‘saved’ is misplaced and goes against the spirit of the Constitution,” the plea states adding that, “without the couple having any control on who has access to their private information (GR) is contributory to the ever ongoing campaign of the parents, vigilante groups & society to control the lives of young people who have decided to choose their own partners.”

About the controversial committee

The Committee was set up vide a Government Resolution passed on December 13, 2023 following the gruesome murder of Shraddha Walkar in Delhi allegedly by her inter-faith live-in partner. The committee is meant to provide a platform to ‘counsel, communicate and resolve’ issues between couples and families. According to the GR, the committee can seek information of both registered and unregistered marriages.

Within two days of issuing the GR, the government conveniently removed inter-caste marriages from its scope. What seemed to many as a harmless exercise to protect women and to reunite estranged women with their maternal families, is clearly a step towards monitoring inter-faith marriages in the State.

A similar move was seen in Gujarat in 1998-1990 when the state police dedicated certain cells to “investigate cases of inter-community and inter-caste marriages.” The Gujarat police set up the special cells to ‘investigate’ inter-community marriages and was an act of the state that is directly violative of the fundamental rights of equality before the law, Right to Life with Dignity and Right to Freedom of Faith. This was followed by massive resistance and disenchantment of people and a spate of writ petitions were even filed by couples who had voluntarily entered into marriage before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court.

Many social organizations in the state opposed this decision of the government calling it ‘moral policing’ and infringement of people’s right to privacy. They raised concerns that this data will be misused to monitor potential inter-caste (in response to earlier GR) and interfaith marriages and to discourage the same with the apprehension that such couples could be harassed. They also state that the government is ignoring real issues being faced by women in the state and should instead focus on effective implementation of laws against domestic violence and crimes against women.

About Bhaichara Committees

Lodha said that he wants to ensure that the ‘bhaichara committee’ meetings happen regularly to maintain harmony. He said this in response to the clashes in Malad’s Malwani area on Ram Navami whereby 12 men have been arrested for rioting and unlawful assembly. An FIR was lodged by constable Amol Walawalkar who said that when the procession of more than 6,000 was passing through Jama Masjid at Abdul Hamid Road, a mob of 150 gathered there and began raising slogans and eventually pelted stones at the procession.

Related:

Police bandobast inadequate, uncontrolled mob in Ram Navmi procession in Shambhajinagar (Aurangabad), 1 killed: Tv9

Ram Navami: Violent Clashes in many states of India

The contentious route, a common factor in inciting violence during religious processions in India

Violence over Ram Navami procession in Bengal’s Howrah, state a particular target

Only Inter-faith marriages under Maha govt scanner; earlier GR was incorrect says Fadnavis

The post Maharashtra interfaith committee to submit report by end April appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a tragic incident of religious intolerance, a 19-year-old girl committed suicide hours after her family allegedly killed her Muslim boyfriend, Zia-ur-Rehman, aged 20, in the Saharanpur region of Uttar Pradesh.

Reports state that the boy was initially summoned by the girl’s family to their home, where they viciously beat him for having an “affair” with their daughter. The boy, who was the girl’s classmate, passed away in a hospital in Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

The incident happened at Islampur locality of Rampur Maniharan region in UP’s Saharanpur district. Both the youngsters involved, Tannu Saini and Zia-Ur-Rehman, were student s of BSc course, reported Times of India.

The police have stated that they have are “yet to receive any complaint from either family,” adding that the required steps would be undertaken once the postmortem report for the deceased youth is received, as reported by the Times of India.

Tannu’s post-mortem report states that she died by hanging. But no FIR has yet been lodged. Since the two were of different faiths and there were reports of their deaths, local markets stayed closed out of concern for communal unrest. According to SSP Vipin Tada, the right steps will be taken in this regard. To manage the situation, police have been stationed in the region.

Zia’s father claimed that the girl’s family called his son on November 1 and severely beat him. Later, he was abandoned outside the house, as reported by the Times of India

“We rushed to the spot after someone informed us and took him to a hospital from where he was referred to Dehradun. He succumbed to his injuries on November 2,” as told by Ayub Ahmad, Zia’s father.

Related:

Jharkhand: Muslim man allegedly killed for being in a relationship with a non-Muslim woman

CJP’s Love Jihad amendment petition allowed by SC

Marry Hindu men to avoid triple talaq: Suresh Chavhanke’s advice to Muslim women

No interfaith nikah sans parents’ consent: MP’s Ulama Board’s latest diktat

The post Inter-faith love affair takes a tragic turn in Uttar Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.