Supreme Court Upholds Individual Liberty in Marriage Choice: Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 9 April 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 270

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI (for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (concurring)

Can a High Court, in a habeas corpus petition, annul a marriage it deems unsuitable, thereby infringing upon an individual’s fundamental rights? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M., emphasizing the paramount importance of individual autonomy and the right to choose a life partner. The judgment highlights the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutional freedoms and preventing societal norms from overriding individual rights. The bench was composed of Dipak Misra, CJI, and A.M. Khanwilkar, J., with a concurring opinion from Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Case Background

The case revolves around Ms. Akhila alias Hadiya, a 26-year-old woman, and her marriage to Shafin Jahan. Hadiya, while pursuing her BHMS degree, lived with other students, including Jaseena and Faseena, who influenced her to change her faith. Her father, Asokan K.M., noticed changes in her behavior when she showed reluctance to participate in rituals after her grandfather’s death on December 6, 2015. On January 6, 2016, Asokan received a call that Hadiya had started wearing a ‘Pardah’ and was inspired to change her faith. After this, Hadiya left her home and stayed at the house of Aboobacker, the father of Jaseena and Faseena.

Asokan filed a complaint with the police, and when no action was taken, he filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court of Kerala. Hadiya appeared in court through a lawyer and stated that she had converted to Islam and left her home willingly. The High Court initially allowed her to stay at an institution called “Satyasarani.” However, Asokan filed another petition alleging that his daughter was likely to be transported out of the country. The High Court, despite Hadiya’s statements that she had not been issued a passport and had no intention of going to Syria, expressed concerns about her safety. The High Court, on December 21, 2016, was informed that Hadiya had married Shafin Jahan on December 19, 2016. The High Court expressed its displeasure and eventually annulled the marriage, directing Hadiya to stay with her parents, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Kerala initially allowed Hadiya to stay at the Satyasarani institution, recognizing her choice. However, on a second petition by her father, the High Court expressed concerns about her safety, particularly after learning about her marriage to Shafin Jahan. The High Court, exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, annulled the marriage, stating that Hadiya, being a 24-year-old woman, was vulnerable and could be exploited. The High Court also directed that she be placed in the custody of her parents and ordered an investigation into the circumstances surrounding her marriage and the people involved. This decision was challenged by Shafin Jahan in the Supreme Court, leading to the final judgment.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the writ of habeas corpus and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court emphasized that the writ of habeas corpus is a procedural writ meant to secure the release of a person illegally restrained of their liberty. The court also highlighted the importance of individual liberty and the right to choose a life partner, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Additionally, the court discussed the concept of parens patriae, noting that while the state has a duty to protect vulnerable individuals, this power should not be used to curtail the rights of competent adults. The court also noted that the freedom of choice is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The relevant provisions considered by the court are:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The court interpreted this to include the right to choose a life partner.
• Article 19 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. The court interpreted this to include the freedom of choice.
• Writ of Habeas Corpus: A procedural writ used to secure the release of a person illegally detained. The court clarified that the writ’s purpose is to ensure liberty and not to control personal choices.

Arguments

Appellant (Shafin Jahan)’s Submissions:

• The High Court erred in annulling the marriage in a habeas corpus petition. The scope of such a petition is limited to determining whether a person is under illegal confinement.

• Hadiya, being a major, has the right to choose her life partner and her faith. The High Court cannot impose its views on her personal choices.

• The High Court’s invocation of parens patriae jurisdiction was inappropriate as Hadiya was not a minor or mentally incapacitated.

• The High Court’s concerns about social radicalization and potential threats were outside the scope of the habeas corpus petition.

• The High Court’s actions violated Hadiya’s fundamental rights to liberty and autonomy.

Respondent (Asokan K.M.)’s Submissions:

• The High Court was justified in exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction to protect Hadiya, who was a vulnerable adult.

• The marriage was a sham and a device to take Hadiya out of the country and was not a genuine expression of choice.

• The High Court was concerned about Hadiya’s safety and the influence of radical elements.

• The High Court’s actions were necessary to ensure Hadiya’s welfare and prevent her from being exploited.

• The marriage was conducted in secrecy and without the knowledge of the High Court, which was monitoring the matter.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the key issues that the court addressed can be summarized as follows:

1. Whether the High Court can annul a marriage in a habeas corpus petition.
2. Whether a High Court can exercise parens patriae jurisdiction over a major.
3. Whether the High Court can impose its views on an adult’s choice of partner and faith.
4. Whether the High Court’s concerns about social radicalization and potential threats are within the scope of a habeas corpus petition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several cases and legal principles to arrive at its decision. These authorities were used to support the court’s interpretation of the writ of habeas corpus, individual liberty, and the limits of parens patriae jurisdiction.

Cases and Books Relied Upon:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Cox v. Hakes [CITATION] and Secretary of State for Home Affairs v. O’Brien [CITATION] to emphasize the fundamental nature of habeas corpus as a safeguard of individual liberty.
• The Court cited Ranjit Singh v. State of Pepsu [CITATION] and Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling [CITATION] to highlight that habeas corpus proceedings are meant to be expeditious and focused on the legality of detention, not on personal choices.
• The Court used Ware v. Sanders [CITATION] and Ummu Sabeena v. State of Kerala [CITATION] to support the view that habeas corpus regulations should be interpreted liberally to promote its effectiveness and to emphasize the duty of judges to safeguard individual liberty.
• The Supreme Court referred to Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India [CITATION], Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India [CITATION], and Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India [CITATION] to discuss the concept of parens patriae, clarifying that it applies to those unable to protect themselves and is subject to judicial scrutiny.
• The Court cited Heller v. Doe [CITATION], E. (Mrs.) v. Eve [CITATION], Secretary, Department of Health v. J.W.B. and S.M.B. [CITATION], and AC v. OC (a minor) [CITATION] to further explain the limitations of parens patriae and that it should be exercised for the benefit of the person needing protection, not others.
• The Court considered DL v. A Local Authority and others [CITATION], Re: SA (Vulnerable Adult with Capacity : Marriage) [CITATION], A Local Authority v. HB, MB, ML and BL [CITATION], and A Local Authority v. Y [CITATION] to discuss the application of parens patriae to vulnerable adults and the court’s inherent jurisdiction to protect individuals from radicalization, but held that these cases were not applicable to the present case.
• The Court relied on Gian Devi v Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi [CITATION], Girish v Radhamony K [CITATION], Lata Singh v State of U P [CITATION], Bhagwan Dass v State (NCT OF DELHI) [CITATION], and Soni Gerry v Gerry Douglas [CITATION] to emphasize that adults have the right to choose their residence and life partner, and that courts should not act as super guardians.
• The Court cited Justice K S Puttaswamy v Union of India [CITATION] and Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v Union of India [CITATION] to highlight the importance of individual autonomy and the right to make decisions on matters close to one’s life.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by its commitment to upholding individual liberty and constitutional rights. The court was deeply concerned about the High Court’s overreach and its disregard for Hadiya’s autonomy as a major. The court emphasized that personal choices, especially those related to marriage and faith, are fundamental rights and cannot be curtailed by societal norms or judicial intervention. The court’s reasoning was also influenced by its understanding of the limitations of habeas corpus jurisdiction and the parens patriae doctrine. The court aimed to set a precedent that protects individual freedoms and prevents future judicial overreach.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was largely influenced by legal considerations (70%), focusing on constitutional rights and the proper scope of judicial intervention. While factual aspects were considered (30%), they were secondary to the court’s legal analysis.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the High Court can annul a marriage in a habeas corpus petition.

Issue 2: Whether a High Court can exercise parens patriae jurisdiction over a major.

Issue 3: Whether the High Court can impose its views on an adult’s choice of partner and faith.

Issue 4: Whether the High Court’s concerns about social radicalization and potential threats are within the scope of a habeas corpus petition.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Kerala. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in annulling the marriage between Hadiya and Shafin Jahan. The Court restored the marriage and affirmed Hadiya’s right to live with her husband. The Court also emphasized the importance of individual liberty and autonomy in matters of personal choice, including marriage and faith. The Supreme Court’s judgment was a landmark decision that reinforced the fundamental rights of individuals in India.

Conclusion

The Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. case is a landmark judgment that underscores the importance of individual liberty and autonomy in matters of personal choice, particularly in the context of marriage and faith. The Supreme Court’s decision firmly established that the judiciary cannot impose its views on the personal choices of competent adults and that the writ of habeas corpus is limited to determining the legality of detention, not controlling personal decisions. The judgment also clarified the limitations of the parens patriae doctrine, ensuring that it is not used to curtail the rights of competent adults. This case serves as a crucial precedent for future cases involving individual liberties, personal autonomy, and the limits of judicial intervention. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on constitutional rights and the protection of individual freedoms makes this case a significant milestone in Indian jurisprudence.