अल्लाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट ने इंटर्फ़ेथ समलैंगिक युगल को रहने का मौलिक अधिकार मान्यता दी

Interfaith Same-Sex Couple Has Fundamental Right To Live Together In Peaceful Live-In Relationship: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

21 Sept 2026 2:42 PM IST

The Allahabad High Court has observed that an interfaith same-sex couple has a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to live together in a peaceful live-in relationship, observing that family members, relatives, or other persons cannot interfere with the couple's choice to live together.

A bench of Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary passed the order while dealing with a writ petition filed by a lesbian couple, who sought protection from alleged threats and harassment by private respondents.

Case in brief

The petitioners' counsel submitted that both petitioners were adults, unmarried, interfaith and same-sex and were living together in a live-in relationship.

It was alleged that they were facing threats and harassment from private respondents and family members on account of their decision to live together.

The petitioners also personally appeared before the Court. According to the order, they stated in "clear, firm and fearless words" that they were adults and had voluntarily chosen, without any pressure, fear or undue influence, to live together and wished to continue doing so.

In their written statements, the petitioners alleged that private respondents (family members of the couple) were interfering with their peaceful life.

On the other hand, the Standing Counsel for the State argued that same-sex relationships do not have social acceptance. While acknowledging that a person's right to choose a partner of their choice is protected under Article 21, it was submitted that legislative recognition of such a choice is not a fundamental right.

The State further contended that a traditional section of society believes that the institution of marriage and family is between a man and a woman and serves the purpose of procreation. It was argued that same-sex relationships affect this natural and traditional structure.

High Court's observations

The High Court considered the Supreme Court's judgment in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court held that there is no unqualified fundamental right to marriage except where recognized by statute or custom.

The Supreme Court had also recognized that queer and LGBTQ+ persons have a right to union or relationship under Article 21, flowing from privacy, choice and autonomy, while holding that legal recognition of such a union as a marriage is a matter for the legislature.

Considering this, the Allahabad High Court observed that queer/LGBTQ+ couples have a right under Article 21 to their relationship and live-in union, although legal marital status remains within the domain of the legislature.

The Court also stressed on the right of adults to choose their living arrangement.

"…when two adult citizens, exercising their personal autonomy and choice, decide to live together, living in a live-in relationship is their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The family members, relatives or any section of society have no legal right to obstruct their peaceful cohabitation, intimidate or threaten them, or violate their physical liberty. The absence of marital recognition does not give any third party or administrative machinery the liberty to interfere with the dignity and physical security of adult citizens. The right to life and personal liberty is paramount in the constitutional scheme".

The Court found that the petitioners were adults, educated and capable of understanding their welfare and had voluntarily chosen to live together without coercion. It held that no person has the right to oppose their decision.

Allowing the petition, the High Court directed that the petitioners were free to live together peacefully and that their family members or any other person could not interfere with their decision.

The Court further directed that if the petitioners faced any obstruction, they could approach the Police Commissioner, SSP or SP concerned, who would provide immediate protection after verifying their adulthood and voluntary cohabitation.

The private respondents were also granted liberty to seek recall of the order if they could establish that the documents relied upon by the petitioners were forged or fabricated.

Case Title - Farida Ansari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 732

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 732

Powered by Nyaya 247 News