The Allahabad High Court recently ruled against an interfaith couple in a live-in

relationship, denying them protection from police harassment. The court's decision
has been criticized by some legal experts, who argue that it is based on outdated
notions of social morality and that it disregards the Supreme Court's precedent on
the issue of live-in relationships.
The court's judgment is based on the premise that marriage is a precondition for
constitutional protection and the exercise of fundamental rights. However, this
premise is flawed, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to
privacy and the right to free association are fundamental rights that apply to all
individuals, regardless of their marital status.
In addition, the court's judgment relies on a survey of personal laws on marriage,
which is irrelevant to the issue of whether the couple in this case have a right to
be free from police harassment. The personal laws of different religious
communities may have different views on marriage, but these views are not binding
on the courts.
The court's decision is a classic case of judicial indiscipline. It disregards the
Supreme Court's precedent on the issue of live-in relationships and it is based on
outdated notions of social morality. The judgment is likely to be appealed to the
Supreme Court, and it is hoped that the Supreme Court will set the record straight
and uphold the couple's fundamental rights.