Case Brief: Shafin Jahan vs Ashokan K.M. & Ors. (Hadiya Marriage Case) | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Case Name- Shafin Jahan vs Ashokan K.M. & Ors. (Hadiya Marriage Case)

• Court – Supreme Court of India
• Citation – Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5777 of 2017)
• Coram- CJI Dipak Misra , Justice A.M. Khanwilkar , Justice DY Chandrachud

Brief Facts for Shafin Jahan vs Ashokan K.M. & Ors.

• Appellant has approached this court to appeal against the Kerala High Court order which stated the marriage between Appellant and Hadiya (alias Akhila; Respondent no. 7) to be null and void.
• Hadiya is a 24-year-old student of BHMS at a private college in Salem.
• She was earlier ordered by the court to stay with her parents because of the writ petition of habeas corpus filed before it.
• She asked the court to stay in the hostel of her college to continue with her internship and complete her course.
• During that period, she apparently got married to the Appellant, which was a case of concern according to her father, Ashokan.
• The High Court annulled the marriage and ordered Hadiya to stay with her parents. The Appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

Issues in Shafin Jahan vs Ashokan K.M. & Ors.

• Whether the High Court can exercise habeas corpus under Article 226?
• Whether the High Court has any jurisdiction over personal matters?

Important Arguments

• The appellant argues that the High Court's decision violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to marriage for adults and the freedom to follow any religion. They believe that the annulment of the marriage between two consenting adults is unjust.
• The appellant's legal representative asserts that the case is being wrongly portrayed as a matter of "love jihad" to stir communal tensions, distracting from the core legal issues at hand.
• It is argued that the court should not have invoked its "Parens Patriae jurisdiction" in this particular case, as it was not warranted.
• The principle of habeas corpus, which protects against unlawful detention, is raised. It is contended that Hadiya willingly appeared before the court and was not held against her will, highlighting the court's decision to confine her to her parents' custody as a violation of her rights.
• The respondents counter that the case involves elements of "love jihad" and advocate for confidential proceedings to protect the individuals involved.
• They claim that the appellant influenced Hadiya and coerced her into marriage without her parents' consent, alleging that she was vulnerable and easily manipulated.
• The respondents argue that Hadiya's well-being is best served by staying with her parents, who have her best interests at heart, and that the marriage should be annulled due to undue influence.

Judgement: Shafin Jahan vs Ashokan K.M. & Ors.

• The appeal was successful, confirming the validity of the marriage between Shafin Jahan and Hadiya.
• The National Investigation Agency (NIA) is tasked with investigating any potential undue influence in the marriage. Until the inquiry is completed, the marriage remains valid.
• The High Court's intervention under Article 226 was deemed excessive as it exceeded its jurisdiction in personal matters. The habeas corpus writ, allowing the court to ensure a person is not unlawfully detained, was considered unnecessary since Hadiya willingly appeared in court when summoned.

Present Status

• The court's order remains unchallenged to date.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, the current case revolves around the societal conflict often arising from inter-caste or inter-religious marriages among young individuals in Indian society. Courts diverge in their views, debating whether to grant freedom to consenting adults seeking to marry without regard to caste or religion, or alternatively, to uphold parental rights in line with traditional Indian norms.
• From a legal standpoint, it is imperative to prioritize individual rights over entrenched social traditions. The legal framework should accord paramount importance to rights in order to adjudicate any case effectively. This emphasizes the significance of upholding personal freedoms in the face of societal expectations and traditional values.