Shafin Jahan vs. Ashokan K.M.
“It is not just her freedom to choose, her physical freedom has also been curtailed. She is effectively a prisoner at her father's house right now”
Kavita Krishnan, Women's rights activist
Jasmeen Gayas
Lloyd Law College
Introduction
The case of Shafin Jahan vs. Ashokan K.M. is also known as the Hadiya case. The case revolves around inter-religious marriage and the right of a woman to make her own decisions about marriage and choice of partner. The case gained prominence due to its connection to the concept of love jihad. The case involved a dispute over the marriage of Hadiya Jahan, who converted to Islam and married a Muslim man. Her father questioned her marriage as it was done without his consent or choice. This case was complex because of inter-religious marriage.
Facts of the Case
Hadiya Jahan was Hindu by birth, and her real name is Akhila Ashokan. She converted her religion to Islam after staying with her friends, Jaseena and Faseena, while studying for BHMS at Shivraj Homeopathic Medical College, in Tamil Nadu. At 24, she married a Muslim man named Shafin Jahan. In 2016, Hadiya’s father found out about the conversion of her religion. He filed a habeas corpus petition before the Kerala High Court in January, on the ground that his daughter had been forcibly converted to Islam and was part of a large conspiracy or had an ulterior motive.
During the proceedings, Hadiya appeared before the High Court and stated that she had freely chosen to convert to Islam and resided at the Sathyasarani Education Charitable Trust at Malappuram. Thus, the High Court observed that Hadiya was not falsely confined by anyone, and she was free to make decisions by herself.
After seven months, Ashokan filed another writ (habeas corpus) petition to the High Court, stating that his daughter had been pressured into converting to Islam and was likely to be transported out of India. The High Court interacted with Hadiya, who appeared in the proceedings, declined to accompany her parents, and expressed a desire to continue to live in Sathyasarani. On 21st December 2016, the High Court was informed that Hadiya had entered into marriage on 19th December 2016 with Shafin Jahan. The High Court noted that the marriage was unexpected. The High Court held that a 24-year-old girl can be exploited in many ways because they are weak and vulnerable. The court exercised parens patriae jurisdiction and mentioned that it was concerned with the welfare of a girl of her age and the custody of Hadiya given to her father. The Divisional Bench of the High Court declared the marriage between Hadiya and Shafin Jahan as void and null.
Issues Raised
1. Does the High Court have the power under Article 226 to annul and void the marriage of an adult?
2. Whether an adult individual can exercise their autonomy in matters of marriage or religion without interference of family.
Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is a fundamental right. People are entitled to protect their name, respect, etc. This recognition is crucial in a society where women often face societal and familial pressures that can restrict their freedom to choose. This case highlights the person’s liberty, constitutional rights, and judicial intervention. The question raised is whether an adult individual can exercise their autonomy in matters of marriage or religion without interference from family.
The High Court possesses a Constitutional power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce the rights ensured under Part III of the Indian Constitution and for any other reason as may be the case. It has been argued that the High Court can annul a marriage if it is satisfied that the marriage took place under suspicious circumstances. The Court’s decision to annul Hadiya’s marriage undermines the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. By placing the custody of Hadiya to her father, the Court essentially ignored that Hadiya is an adult woman capable of making her own decisions. This decision of the court raises concerns about the role of the court in safeguarding individual rights.
The initial petition filed by Ashokan K.M. was rejected by the High Court on the ground that Hadiya willingly accepted Islam and there was no external coercion. After some months, Ashokan K.M. filed another petition (Habeas Corpus) before the Kerala High Court to prevent her daughter from being transported out of India, the petition was filed on the concept of “Love Jihad” and the Court accepted the argument of Ashokan, and held that a 24 years old girl is weak and vulnerable and capable of being exploited in many ways. The Court further exercised parens patriae jurisdiction and observed that it was concerned with the welfare of a girl at this age and granted the custody of Hadiya to her father for her well-being. The Court also stated that the marriage is the most important decision of life and the active participation of parents should be taken to solemnize it and held that “the marriage is a sham and is of no consequences in the eye of the law” and the High Court declared the marriage between Hadiya and Shafin Jahan void and null.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, Shafin Jahan filed a petition against the ruling of the High Court. The Supreme Court in its interim order by Dr. DY. Chandrachud stated that the court cannot impose its perception of what it considered to be a ‘just’ way of life or a ‘correct’ way of living life. She had autonomy in her own life or person. He also stated that Hadiya appeared before the High Court and stated that she was not under any illegal confinement. The purpose of habeas corpus ended at this point and had to be closed as the earlier bench had done. But the High Court further proceeded with the exercise of the jurisdiction and declared the marriage void and null, while entertaining the habeas corpus petition, which was a significant excess of judicial power. Therefore, the High Court’s decision was against the Constitution and out of its jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court mentioned that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The constitution guarantees the right to life and this right cannot be taken away except according to procedure established by law. The court relied upon Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006), in which it was declared that once a person becomes a major, he or she can marry whichever they like. If parents have a problem with the marriage of their children, then they can cut off social relations with the son or daughter but they cannot threaten or harass the persons who undergo inter-religious or inter-caste marriage. In this case, Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M., the High Court could not decide whether Shafin Jahan was a fit person for Hadiya to marry as it was prohibited by the court. Society has no right to determine our choice of partner. Indeed, the Constitution protects an individual’s liberty.
The debate regarding the problem of ‘love jihad’ is politically and socially inclined with malicious intent behind it. In effect, the Indian Laws encourage inter-caste marriages or “Love Jihad.” The Special Marriage Act, of 1954 was enacted to regulate India's inter-caste marriage. Therefore, it is quite shocking that the statement by the girl and boy had even convinced the Kerala High Court in the first instance. The reasoning that “marriage is a serious decision and needs to be taken in consultation with the parents” was considered vague and erroneous by the Apex Court. It is not a case of undue influence on the girl and therefore the High Court ordering annulment of marriage and granting custody to her parents was incorrect and against the basic provisions of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court had framed the issue of whether there was a need for a Central level investigation in the case. In 2017, the ruling and the Apex Court directed the officials to get the case probe done by the National Investigation Agency to clarify whether this case is also some bigger conspiracy or an isolated one. The Apex referred to Bharati Tamang v. Union of India, wherein, the principles laid down thereof promote and ensure effective conduct of prosecution before the court of law. Courts have been granted vast powers to prevent the miscarriage of justice and courts can therefore direct that the probe in the matter be conducted by the National Investigation Agency if required. Hence, the Apex Court observed that the High Courts possess powers to direct an investigation where the case is complex and there exists a suspicious sequence of events. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant (Shafin Jahan) and held that the marriage was valid and she did not need consent and approval for her marriage from her parents. She is an adult and can make her own decisions without any other interference.
Judgment
In March 2018, the Supreme Court rejected the Kerala High Court’s order annulling the marriage of Hadiya and Shafin Jahan by upholding the constitutional values of personal liberty and autonomy under Article 21. As an adult, Hadiya had the same fundamental right, which is essential in a civilized society, to choose her religion and marry the person of her choice without intervention of the judiciary, family, or society, the Court held. It criticized the Kerala High Court for judicial overreach and stated that the courts must respect the autonomy of individuals and not act in a paternalistic manner by interfering in personal decisions.
The Court accepted that Hadiya’s conversion to Islam and her marriage were instances of free will, protected under Article 25 of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion. It enabled the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to continue its probe into wider allegations of forced conversions but it made clear such inquiries could not affect the validity of Hadiya’s marriage. In its final order, the Court held that the marriage was valid and she could live with her husband without any fear. The Court removed Hadiya from her father’s custody, as it was against her will, and directed the authorities to ensure that she could pursue her studies after she expressed her desire to continue her studies.
Conclusion
Hadiya’s case is the perfect example of “patriarchal autocracy and possibly self-obsession with the feeling that a female is a chattel” termed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the autonomy, dignity, and personal liberty underlying the Constitution. The judgment held that the right to marry a person of one’s choice and the right to choose or convert her religion are fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution. Moreover, the conversion and marriage were valid and the validity cannot be decided by the court if the person attained the age of majority.
By rejecting patriarchal interference and judicial overreach, the Supreme Court highlighted that personal liberty is more important than social approvals and family consent. This landmark judgment played a significant role in upholding the values of equality, secularism, and individual freedoms and underlined the power of the judiciary to protect constitutional rights. It also highlighted that people must respect women’s autonomy, trying to change practices of society that still see women as less capable or unable to make their own decisions.
References