INTRODUCTION
Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. also known as the Hadiya marriage case is a landmark judgement when it comes to the freedom to profess or propagate any religion. This case revolved around the marriage of a woman and how her father questioned her marriage as it was done without his choice. The case becomes even more complex when a change of religion comes into play.
Facts of the case:
- AkhilaAshokan was a medical student studying in Tamil Nadu who
lived with her two friends Jaseena and Faseena. She met a Muslim
man named Shafin Jahan (Defendant) who she later married at the age
of 25 years old and changed her religion to Islam as well as her
name to Hadiya Jahan.
- Ashokan (Plaintiff), who was the father of Akhila came to know
that she had changed her religion to Islam and had married Shafin.
This agitated him and due to this he moved to the Kerala High Court
filing a writ petition of Habeas Corpus. This petition was filed
challenging the validity of the marriage and he pleaded that this
marriage was void as his daughter was forced and brain washed to
convert to Islam.
- The Kerala High Court held that the marriage was a sham and
children of the age of 24 years are weak and vulnerable and it is
the duty of the parents to protect them from any harm that may
inflict upon them. The court directed Ashokan custody of his
daughter and declared the marriage as void despite the fact that
Hadiya was a consenting adult.
- Shafin later approached the Supreme Court challenging the verdict of the Kerala High court. The Supreme Court said on 9th April 2018 that the Kerala High Court did not have the power to annul the marriage of the two consenting adults. Hadiya Jahan came into the marriage with her own choice and it was her freedom of choice to marry Shafin.
ISSUES
- Whether the Kerala High court was justified to annul the
marriage under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution?
- Whether Ashokan was justified in filing a write petition before
the court?
- Do lawful adults require the consent of their guardian/parents
before entering into a marriage
RULES
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which states that every person has the right to personal liberty
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution which gives the High court certain powers to issue writs
ANALYSIS
In this case, the first petition which was filed by Ashokan was rejected by the Kerala High Court as it was proved that Hadiya had converted to Islam wilfully and that her conversion was without any coercion whatsoever.
After the first petition, Ashokan filed another petition before the High Court to prevent Shafin from taking Hadiya out of India and to seek custody of her daughter. He stated that Shafin had ties to external Muslim organizations and the case was filed on the basis of ‘love Jihad'. The court accepted the appeal and said that a girl of 24 years is weak and vulnerable and can easily be used by other people. Further, the court said that the parents should have a meaningful say in the marriage of their daughter and applied the principle of Parens Patria while granting custody of Hadiya to Ashokan. The High Court further reiterated that the marriage was a sham and declared it to be void.
Shafin further appealed to the Supreme Court thereby challenging the decision of the Kerala High Court. The apex court stated that the decision taken by the Kerala High court was wrong and unjust. They misused their power in annulling the marriage as it was done by consent of both the parties. Further, Hadiya was under no sort of coercion by her husband for conversion of religion or for the marriage. The Supreme Court also ordered the National Investigation Agency to look into the marriage. The final judgement given by the apex court laid down that the marriage between the two parties be restored and it was also stated that Hadiya be sent back to her college to finish her studies.
Shafin Jahan and Hadiya's marriage was legal because the court did not uncover any covert reasons for the union. The claims made by Hadiya's father were false and had nothing to do with the marriage. Hadya's father was just looking out for her and her consenting to marriage with a Muslim man may although be unethical in the eyes of her father but it is far from illegal in any case. Major emphasis has to be put on the consent of Hadya in this case and the court did not find any compelling evidence which stated that Hadya was in the union without her will or wish.
The court in Bhagwan Das v. State (NCT of Delhi) avoided social ills like honour killings and love jihad and declared that these customs are a remnant of a feudal mentality that is a stain on the country. The court has a duty to uphold each person's fundamental rights, not to limit them unless absolutely necessary. The law and rules must be followed by the courts, and they must base their decision on legality rather than morality. The Indian Constitution specifically protects everyone's right to freely practise any religion or belief.
CONCLUSION
Article 21 which states that every person has the right to personal liberty can be seen clearly in this case. Hadiya was under immense pressure of the patriarchal society and the same can also be seen in the judgement of the Kerala High court. It stated that a woman cannot live or prosper without her guardian and gave the verdict in opposition to her.
The Supreme Court corrected this wrong where they ruled in favour of Hadiya and gave a very important judgement regarding the right to freedom of choice. Any person who has attained the age of majority can enter into a contract under the Indian Constitution and marriage is also one such contract that comes under the meaning of this definition. Thus, the marriage between the parties is valid on the grounds that it was done by the consent of both the parties.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
