Supreme Court to U'khand: Consenting adults can live with whoever they wish

In a much-needed reality check, the Supreme Court of India recently reminded the state (yet again) that two consenting adults choosing to live together — regardless of their religion — is not a criminal offence.

As per a report in the Hindustan Times, this reminder came while the Court granted bail to a Muslim man who had already spent nearly six months behind bars. His crime? Daring to marry a Hindu woman. Yes, really.

While the Uttarakhand High Court had earlier turned down his bail plea, the Supreme Court, in a recent ruling by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, stepped in and did what the lower court refused to: uphold basic constitutional rights.

“The respondent-state cannot have any objection to the appellant and his wife residing together,” the justices said, pointing out that both families had supported the marriage. In other words, no one from either side of the aisle was screaming foul — except the state machinery and its ever-watchful morality police.

For those unfamiliar with the legal landscape in several Indian states these days, here's some context: laws like the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 — often dubbed "anti-conversion" laws — have increasingly been wielded as blunt instruments against interfaith couples. These laws presume, with astonishing frequency, that any union involving a Muslim man and a non-Muslim woman must surely involve deceit, coercion, or conversion.

So it’s hardly shocking (though still outrageous) that an FIR was filed only after some third-party busybodies — individuals and groups entirely unrelated to the couple — decided that their marriage was unacceptable. The FIR at the heart of this case was conveniently filed on 12 December last year, just two days after the couple tied the knot on 10 December. Location: Rudrapur police station, Udham Singh Nagar district, Uttarakhand. Clearly, someone wasted no time turning post-wedding bliss into a criminal investigation.

In its 28 February order, the Uttarakhand High Court nodded along with the prosecution’s claim that the man had intentionally kept his Muslim identity under wraps. The court seemed especially perturbed by the fact that the wedding ceremony followed Hindu customs — even though both families were present — and that, shockingly, no one stood up mid-ritual yelling “He’s a Muslim!” until after the celebrations ended.

The complaint wasn’t even filed by the bride or her immediate family, but by a cousin who apparently had a religious revelation after visiting the man's home in Delhi. There, they noticed that “most of the people belonged to a different community.” A true Sherlock Holmes moment.

In his defence, the groom’s lawyer also pointed out that his own mother is a practising Hindu and that he was raised in a Hindu-majority environment. But the high court wasn’t buying it. Instead, it wagged its judicial finger at the couple for not marrying under the Special Marriage Act — which, let’s face it, has become the preferred loophole to avoid triggering 'love Jihad' alarms in states like Uttarakhand. The court also used the affidavit — yes, the same one meant to reassure everyone — as evidence that “correct facts had not been disclosed.”

The man was arrested under both the aforementioned Act and the newly minted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under allegations that he “hid” his religion and “fraudulently” married the woman under Hindu rituals. Never mind that both families knew about and attended the wedding. Never mind that the groom signed an affidavit immediately afterward affirming that his wife was under no pressure to convert and was free to practice her own faith. Logic and facts, it seems, are optional when it comes to weaponising the law against interfaith love.

The Supreme Court, however, was unmoved by this manufactured outrage. The judges firmly reiterated that the state cannot intrude into the personal choices of adults simply because their religions don’t align neatly with someone’s majoritarian comfort zone.

Also worth noting: the court clarified that ongoing criminal proceedings—based on these dubious charges—should not stop the couple from living together. A small but crucial win for personal liberty in an increasingly surveillance-happy climate.