A bench of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, at the outset, said the petitioner should approach the High Court on the issue, as the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is not an appropriate remedy to set aside the High Court order. The bench also noted that the division bench of the High Court had already set aside the High Court order cited by the petitioner. 

The top court emphasised that it does not see any reason to interfere at this stage, after the petitioner admitted that a division bench of the Allahabad High Court has subsequently set aside the order dated September 23. 

The plea filed by advocate Aldanish Rein said the High Court order has laid a wrong precedent that inter-religious marriages cannot be solemnised at the instance of conversion of religion by either of the partner. In the order passed on September 23, the High Court had declined police protection to a married couple in a case where a Muslim girl had converted to Hinduism and married a Hindu boy. 

Rein insisted that the apex court should say that the declaration made by the High Court was not correct, and cited that several inter-faith couples are facing problems in Uttar Pradesh. He also emphasised this order triggered the Uttar Pradesh government to pass an ordinance against inter-faith marriages. 

The bench told Rein that it would not be a fruitful exercise to further emphasise on the issue before the top court, and instead he could move the High Court concerned, and if there was no relief from there, then he could certainly  move back to the top court. 

The bench reiterated that a petition under Article 32 is not the route to address the High Court order. 

Concluding the hearing in the matter, the top court told Rein: "After the division bench has held this declaration to be bad, then why do you want the Supreme Court to declare the same".