Author: Sai Smruti Kiran, Centurion University, Bhubaneswar
ABSTRACT
The Celebrated case of Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) emerged as a watershed in the Indian constitutional jurisprudence by reaffirming individual autonomy and the right of an individual to choose her life partner. The case emerged out of the ultra-publicized “Hadiya matter” in which a minor woman, who married her choice of Muslim partner after conversion of her religion, was forcibly placed under the custody of her parents. The “Hadiya matter” had gained notoriety on the claim that forceful abduction of Hindu women by Muslim men for love jihad was a matter of political concern. The Kerala High Court annulled the marriage and directed her to be handed over to her parents. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of India, through the Judgement authorised by a bench headed by the then chief Justice Dipak Misra, held that this Court cannot and should not allow individuals to be turned into objects of investigation or probes, but must do otherwise by defensively reaffirming an individual’s right to choose one’s own religion, marriage and life, which falls within the contemplation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitutional. This article seeks to analyze this constitutional question, the judicial contestation regarding the use of habeas corpus petitions to supervise adult women’s lives and the Court’s deft response.
TO THE POINT
Shafin Jahan married Akhila Asokan, who subsequently adopted the name Hadiya, at a mosque, on 7th December 2016. Hadiya converted to Islam and was enrolled in a house in Kottayam, where she was purposing a postgraduate course. Her father, filed a habeas corpus petition stating that his daughter was illegally restrained and constrained to undertakereligious conversion in the name of ‘Love jihad’ and sought kerela High Court’s intervention. The Court, which did not even fathom her free consent or two-way communication with another person, directed the police to “produce the corpus” and set aside her marriage and directed her to stay with her parents and banned her contract with anyone else including her husband.
This issue came before the Supreme Court in May 2018, and in a 2-1 ruling, the bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud ruled in favour of Hadiya, deciding that she was a major (25 years at the time of marriage), with complete right to choose her religion, her partner and her lifestyle. The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Kerala High Court, reinstated the marriage and declared that Hadiya was at her liberty to take any decision of her choice and whether to stay by order of the Court. The Court observed that safety, provision and concern of the parent cannot override over the right of abodied adult person to make their own choices and the use of their order of habeas corpus which was meant to seek release of persons from unlawful detention as a ploy to control their personal lives in the guise of protecting them.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
The Supreme Court relied on the interpretation of “life and personal liberty” in Article 21 of the Constitution of India in its earlier judgments in approving the State’s decision to introduce the instant legislation. The Court clarified that personal liberty is a fundamental right which encompasses the independence of an individual to take decision about his life, including choices around marriage, faith and intimacies. The Court further clarified that while approaching an adult’s choice to marry, the state authorities need to adhere to the ‘triple-test’ of legality, necessity and proportionality, that the Court has evolved in K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017),
The Court also raised the presumption of innocence in terms of the Sovereign’s authority over one’s person. The state is presumed to have no bad faith or coercion without any evidence to support that. It is the onus of the party who claims lack of will or undue influence to prove it. An otherwise wide ambit of the jurisdiction of the writ of habeas corpus was narrowed further by the Court by reiterating that the Court is not going to embark on a wandering enquiry into the marital affairs of consenting adults. Habeas corpus can only be invoked if there is illegal detention, not if one is merely trying to keep track of one’s personal life.
The Judgement also dealt with the issue of patronizing excess, stating that state has no interests in intruding into private decisions of adult individuals. The Court distinguished between protective custody (permissible only in respect of minors or persons of unsound mind) and punitive detention (which needs an order by a Court of law). In confining Hadiya to punitive detention without any accusation of commission of a crime, the High Court had, the Supreme Court held, exceeded its constitution authority.
The Rule of Judicial restraint was also relied upon. It was held that Supreme Court was correct in holding that the High Court had acted ultra vires by annulling a valid marriage which was a question of personal law and the special Marriage Act, 1954, when neither the husband nor the wife had filed a petition for divorce or declaration of nullity. It was also held that the High Court had entered ‘the field of legislation’.
THE PROOF
The Facts of the case thus present a Strong Evidence for judicial intervention to safeguard individual independence. Post the order of the Kerala High Court, Hadiya was kept in the custody of her parents and was not allowed to meet her husband at all for more than a year. She was shown before the Court many times, yet her responses were undermined by the High Court, which felt that she was under ‘psychological pressure’. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, chose to speak with Hadiya in chambers and recorded her unequivocal statement that she herself wanted to convert and the marriage was consensual.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigation agency mandated by the Kerala High Court to probe the ‘love jihad’ conspiracy submitted it cleared cast-iron conclusion that there was no case of pressure of forced conversion. The NIA’s report was categorical: “conversion of Hadiya to Islam was her own decision and not under any coercion” and that there is no conspiracy or conspiracy or illegal activities in Hadiya’s marriage with Shafin Jahan. Nevertheless, the Kerala High Court contested the decision and wedged to annual the marriage “in public interest” to protect other poor, imbecile women.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the machinery of justice had been put into motion on production of an unsubstantiated allegation. The Court also found that the habeas corpus petition was a ‘smokescreen’ to manipulated Hadiya’s choice that her father would not tolerate. The ruling stated freely that: “The consent of the family or the community is no requirement for the marriage of two willing adult parties”.
CASE LAWS
1. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 368
The main decision concerned. The Supreme Court was of the view that a woman of full age has a right to choose her faith and partner and no parent can encroach upon this right. The supreme Court stayed the directions of Kerala High Court and restored Hadiya’s liberty.
2. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
The decision on privacy by the Supreme Court reaffirmed privacy as a fundamental right protected under Article 21. The Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan placed strong emphasis on the Puttaswamy decision and held that matters of marriage, religion and intimate association lie in the domain of personal autonomy and are free from State trespass.
3. Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) 5 SCC 475
The Court ruled that a major woman has the right to marry a person of her choice and anyone including her family members or third persons shall be guilty of an offence to interfere with such a woman. The order was given by the police to be protect the couple from nuisance.
4. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600
The Court reasoned in pre-martial cases that the adult has the autonomy to decide whether to engage in pre-marital living arrangements and whether the law should interfere cannot be facilitated by observing the moral disapproval of the Community.
5. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1
Decided just shortly Shafin Jahan, this judgement descriminalised consensual sex between audits and validated choice and dignity, as fundamental to life and liberty. Although not referenced in Shafin Jahan, the two judgments exhibited a similar constitution of the centrality of the individual.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court pronounced a resounding and opportune vindication of individual liberty in its decision in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. In rendering judgement, the court obliterated the legal edifice constructed around the unfounded notion of love jihad and reaffirmed the sanity of the Constitution. The court held that the adult woman’s choice of religion and choice of partner cannot be vetoed by her family, her community or the State. The court also issued the following directions: (a) Hadiya shall be free to take her own decisions; (b) the marriage of Hadiya with Shafin Jahan shall stand restored; (c) the jurisdiction of the habeas corpus shall not be abused to control adult women.
This Judgment is a shield against moral policing and gendered authority. It explicitly recognizes that in a constitutional democracy, love and freedom to love become coextensive
With the freedom to life itself.
FAQs
Q1. What was the main legal issue in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.?
The core question was whether the marriage and faith preferences of a grown woman could be overridden by her parents or by the court on the grounds of unsubstantiated allegations of persuasion.
Q2. Did the Supreme Court uphold the marriage between Shafin Jahan and Hadiya?
Yes, the Supreme Court set aside the MandalinathaMarriage and Consent Terms annulled the Kerala High Court and ordered the reinstatement of the marriage on the ground that both the parties were consenting audits.
Q3. What is “love jihad” and did the Court accept this concept?
“Love jihad” is a contentious terms used to claim that Muslim men convert Hindu women by marriage. The Supreme Court addressed the notion saying “this is an unsubstantiated claim which has no legal basis or evidentiary foundation investigation by NIA failed to establish any conspiracy.”
Q4. Can parents file a habeas corpus petition to challenge their daughter’s marriage?
Habeas corpus is only available for illegal detention. So, where the woman is a major and not suffering from a mental disorder, her decision to live with her husband cannot be challenged on the basis of habeas corpus merely because her parents don’t like it.
Q5. What is the significance of this case for personal liberty in India?
The case not only reaffirmed that a personal right of privacy and autonomy (including that to select one’s religion and life partner) is fundamental to Article 21, but also laid down that Sate cannot invade privacy of consenting audits in absence of a valid law.
REFERENCES
• Supreme Court of India. (2018). Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors., (2018) 16 SCC 368.
• Supreme Court of India. (2017). K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
• Supreme Court of India. (2018). Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
• Supreme Court of India. (2006). Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2006) 5 SCC 475.
• Supreme Court of India. (2010). S. Khusboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600.
• Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21.
