Facts
- Appellant, Shafin Jahan, advanced an appeal in front of this court, challenging the order of the Kerala High Court that held the marriage between the Appellant and Hadiya to be null and void
- Hadiya is a 24-year-old female student involved in the proceedings of case put up by her father, Ashokan, challenging her conversion to Islam. She was further ordered to reside with her parents in light of the Habeas Corpus filed before Kerala High Court.
- Hadiya requested the court to allow her to continue residing on the college premises to finish her course and was granted the same. However, during this period, she apparently got married to the appellant transforming this into a case of Jihad, as alleged by her father.
- The Kerala High Court ruled in favour of the father and ordered the marriage null and void, along with ordering Hadiya to reside with her parents.
- This order of the High Court was then challenged before the Supreme Court.
Issues Raised
- Whether the father had a right allowing for the case to be filed under the writ of habeas corpus.
- Whether Article 226 allows the High Court to exercise Habeas Corpus to nullify and void the marriage of an adult.
- Whether subjects of such personal matter fall within the ambit of the High Court’s jurisdiction.
- Whether prior approval of parental guardians is necessary for a marriage.
Contention
In favour of the Appellant
- Article 21– the right to marriage by choice is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, along with the right to profess and practice any religion of one’s own choice. The same was contended to have been violated by the Kerala High Court in their decision to annul the marriage of Shafin and Hadiya, two consulting adults of sound mind.
- It was further contended that the counsel for respondents was needlessly making the case to seem out to be a case of jihad, connecting it the problem of communalism. However, this was not the case and hence such a step was merely taken to hinder the delivery of process of law and disrupt order of society.
- The right to exercise ‘Parens Patriae Jurisdiction’ is available with the courts but need only be used in special case. This case, however, fell out of the ambit of being considered a special case and hence the same power should not have been exercised.
- The Kerala High Court moreover violated their fair administration of writ of habeas corpus by ordering Hadiya to reside with her parents. The writ is allowed only under circumstances where a person has been forcefully detained. The proceedings of the case made it clear that this wasn’t the case in the matter of Hadiya as she was willingly residing in her college campus.
In favour of Respondent
- Since this case was considered as an extreme case of love jihaad, the counsel for respondent requested in camera proceedings to ensure confidentiality and security of all the parties involved.
- It was contended that the appellant, Shafin had brainwashed Hadiya during the period of time they spent talking on an online site named “ready for nikah” and had moreover tried to take her to Syria.
- Since Hadiya was staying alone and away from her parents at his time, she was weak and vulnerable making it essential for the consent of her parents for marriage, at such a time of distraught.
- It was prayed before the court that this court shall also follow ‘Parens Patriae Jurisdiction’, as the Kerala High court did, taking into consideration the fact that her parents are her only true well-wishers.
- In light of the same, the said marriage should be dismissed and declared null and void owing to the pretence that it was carried out under undue influence and consent wasn’t valid.
Judgment
The Supreme Court took the appeal into consideration and passed a judgement in favour of the appellant, validating the marriage between Hadiya and Shafin unless the National Investigation agency (hired by the respondents) can prove that the marriage in question as done under undue influence.
Rationale
The fundamental question that this landmark case revolves around is whether individual autonomy is present in the matter of marriage and faith or not. The rationale behind the Supreme Court’s final judgement in Hadiya and Shafin’s favour was drawn from the fundamentals enshrined in the constitution that are based on the following:
- Utmost importance was given to an individual autonomy or right to make their personal choices with regard to faith and marriage. Encompassed under the right to life and liberty granted by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, it ensures one’s freedom to choose their religion, profess it without any hinderance as well as make uninfluenced decisions about one’s marriage. The court upheld this by ruling in Hadiya’s favour and dismissing the notion that one’s family members have any sort of absolute right over an adult’s free choice.
- As enshrined in Article 21 and furthermore supported by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, the freedom of religion was emphasized upon in this case. Along with allowing for the right to freely profess, practice and propagate any religion, Article 25 also ensures that one is free to convert religion if one so pleases to do so. Hadiya’s change of faith to Islam was hence upheld, rejecting contentions of it being done under coercion, owing to these fundamental rights included in the Constitution.
- The judgement passed aimed to strike a balance between Individual choice and family concern. The rationale given by the Kerala High Court dismissed on the basis of distinguishing the actual concern of the family for an adult’s well-being and their want to control the adult’s life. The court further established the opinion that mere family concern cannot overthrow an adult’s fundamental rights.
- The judgement was passed taking into consideration all evidence produced and arguments made. The court followed due process of law and scrutinized all evidence put forth by Hadiya’s father who formed his case alleging coercion and manipulation. Only concrete evidence should be considered and not mere speculation.
Defects of Law
This case highlighted judicial overreach that was done by the Kerala high court while acting in favour of the father’s writ petition. The court used the power of habeas corpus to dictate marital affairs rather than addressing illegal confinement. It was brought forth as a concern regarding exceeding the Writ’s purpose. This judgement also seemed to be influenced by bias against inter-faith marriages and the unsubstantiated claim of ‘love jihad’ leading to giving rise to stereotypes and undermining individual autonomy. However, the Supreme Court’s decision on the same rectified these mistakes that were made by the high court.
The grey area surrounding the concept of ‘love jihad’ was also prominent in this case. Owing to the Supreme Court’s decision, this phrase was detached from its connection to prejudices regarding interfaith relationships.
Inference
The Love jihad case was a positive step towards upholding individual rights and liberties along with highlighting the freedom of religion in India. It pushed the courts towards adopting an unbiased decision when dealing with cases of interfaith marriages. It further eliminated stereotypes revolving around the same concept. It further edged the courts into considering only concrete evidence when it comes to cases where allegations of forced conversion or ‘love jihad’ are made. It also placed the burden of proving such an allegation on the ones alleging the same rather than the parties in the marriage to disprove such an allegation. It allowed the court to prioritise individual autonomy irrespective of family influence. Fundamental rights were put over mere concerns of the family in matters of marriage on religion. One’s family may have concern for their child and their well-being but it cannot be used as a means to overlook the rights granted by the constitution of India.
Despite this precedent being set, a lot of work still needs to be put in as social and religious prejudices continue to persist. These are deep rooted biases in the minds of Indian society that till date holds the religion supreme and sacred and looks down upon conversions. It is demeaned even further if the conversion is done by a female in the society. Moreover the lack of a clear definition for “forced conversion” allows for loopholes around interfaith marriages. Those who are likely to challenge the same find it easier to blame the marriage on forced conversion and get it nullified in Court.
Name- Akanksha Gupta
College- Symbiosis Law School, Pune