Introduction:
In a significant reaffirmation of individual liberty and the sanctity of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Allahabad High Court in Shane Ali & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. came down heavily on the police authorities for the illegal detention of an interfaith couple — a Muslim man and a Hindu woman — who had gone missing after attending a court hearing earlier in the week. The Division Bench comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant convened a special sitting on a non-working day to hear a habeas corpus petition filed by the man’s brother, directing the immediate release of the couple and ensuring their safe escort to Aligarh. The Court declared their detention “a clear violation of fundamental rights under Article 21” and termed it a grave misuse of state machinery, particularly emphasizing that social tensions or religious differences cannot justify unlawful custody in a democratic setup governed by the rule of law.
Arguments of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Ali Bin Saif and assisted by Advocate Kaif Hassan, argued that the couple had been abducted after leaving the High Court premises on October 15, 2025, by the woman’s father and others with the active aid of the local police. It was contended that the authorities had unlawfully detained the couple at Aligarh without any judicial authorization. The petitioners submitted that the girl, being a major, had already recorded a voluntary statement before the Judicial Magistrate expressing her desire to live with the petitioner, yet the police continued to detain both under the pretext of maintaining “social harmony.” The counsel emphasized that this conduct violated the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 and the right to choose one’s partner as recognized in landmark judgments such as Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) and Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006), where the Supreme Court had clearly held that consenting adults have the right to marry and live together irrespective of caste or religion. They further relied on Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas (2018), reiterating that no authority has the right to curtail the liberty of an adult woman acting of her free will. The counsel contended that the police’s justification of “social tension” was not a legal ground for detention under any statute and that their conduct reflected a regressive mindset violating the constitutional ethos of secularism and equality. The petitioners prayed for immediate release and protection of the couple and urged the Court to order a departmental inquiry against the erring officials who facilitated the unlawful detention.
Arguments of the Respondents (State Authorities):
The Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, defended the actions of the police, asserting that their intervention was necessitated by prevailing “social tensions” arising from the interfaith nature of the marriage. It was submitted that there were apprehensions of communal unrest in the locality following reports of the couple’s marriage, prompting the authorities to act in the interest of public order. The State claimed that the girl was kept at a “One Stop Centre” for her safety, while the petitioner was detained temporarily to prevent any escalation of unrest. The counsel added that the police had not acted mala fide but rather out of an abundance of caution to maintain law and order. He also referred to the ongoing investigation concerning the alleged violation of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, as the couple had not informed the District Magistrate before their marriage. The State maintained that the actions were procedural and intended to verify the authenticity of their claims and that there was no deliberate infringement of fundamental rights.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
After hearing both sides, the Bench conducted an in-camera interaction with the couple. The girl, aged 21, unequivocally affirmed that she had married Shane Ali of her own free will and wished to live with him. She clarified that her previous statements before the Magistrate and the High Court were made voluntarily, without any coercion or external pressure. The Court observed that the Judicial Magistrate’s order dated October 17, 2025, had already declared her to be a major and had set her at liberty after verifying her statement. Hence, any further detention by the police was not only unwarranted but also a blatant violation of the law.
The Court carefully perused the case diary and found that the investigating officer had recorded the girl’s statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), where she clearly stated that she had voluntarily gone with the petitioner and intended to reside with him. Despite this clarity, the investigating officer continued to probe into irrelevant aspects, including the couple’s religious backgrounds and their failure to notify the District Magistrate. The Court held that such investigation had no basis in law and that the police’s duty was limited to ensuring her safe escort after she was set free by the Magistrate.
Rejecting the State’s defense of “social tension,” the Court categorically held that social pressure or community sentiment cannot be used to justify the curtailment of fundamental rights. It emphasized that the police cannot detain a person under any pretext unless authorized by law. Justice Salil Kumar Rai, writing for the Bench, observed: “The plea that the girl had to be kept at the ‘One Stop Centre’ and that the petitioner was detained at the police station due to social tension in the area because of the different religions of the parties is not acceptable. Such justification cannot make the detention legal.” The Court further declared that “a detention under social pressure but without authority of law does not make the detention legal but only increases the illegality of the detention.”
In a stern rebuke to the law enforcement machinery, the Court underscored that in a democracy governed by the rule of law, the State is expected to protect citizens’ liberty rather than yield to social pressures or majoritarian sentiments. The Bench described the conduct of the police as a “gross violation of the fundamental rights” of the couple under Article 21, which guarantees every citizen the right to life and personal liberty. The Court highlighted that any restriction on liberty must be sanctioned by law and cannot stem from societal disapproval of interfaith relationships.
Declaring the detention “illegal” from October 15 until the time of hearing, the Bench ordered the couple’s immediate release. It directed the investigating officer to personally escort them to their chosen destination in Aligarh to ensure their safety. The Court also instructed the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, and the Senior Superintendents of Police (SSPs) of Aligarh and Bareilly to ensure that no harm or interference befall the couple in the future. Moreover, the SSP of Aligarh was ordered to conduct a detailed inquiry into the circumstances leading to the unlawful detention and to submit a report to the Court by November 28, 2025. The Court mandated the personal presence of the SSP on that date to explain the findings of the inquiry.
In its concluding remarks, the Bench emphasized that “the officers who failed in their duty to protect the liberty of the couple are liable for departmental action.” It reiterated that the right to choose one’s life partner is an intrinsic part of Article 21, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), which condemned any societal interference in inter-caste or interfaith marriages. The Allahabad High Court observed that love and companionship between consenting adults cannot be criminalized or curtailed due to religious differences. It reminded the State that “the constitutional promise of liberty and dignity extends equally to all citizens, regardless of faith, and any deviation from this principle undermines the spirit of the Constitution itself.”
Through this judgment, the Court once again fortified the jurisprudence surrounding personal liberty and the right to love and companionship, making it clear that state authorities cannot misuse their powers under the guise of maintaining public order. The ruling reflects judicial sensitivity towards individual autonomy, religious freedom, and the protection of vulnerable couples who face persecution for defying social norms. The decision serves as a stern reminder that in a constitutional democracy, liberty cannot be subordinated to prejudice or social disapproval. The High Court’s intervention not only reinstated the couple’s freedom but also reaffirmed the constitutional guarantee that every adult has the right to live with the person of their choice without interference from the State or society.