The court upheld the personal liberty of the individual and allowed her to pursue her chosen career path, despite the objections raised by the petitioner and the NIA.

ORDER

Date : 30-10-2017

1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to modify the order dated 16.08.2017 and accordingly direct the presence of the daughter of the first respondent at 3.00 P.M. on 27.11.2017. We may further add that this Court shall speak to her not in camera but in open Court.

2. We will be failing in our duty if we do not note the submission of Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the National Investigation Agency and Mr. Shaym Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent that in a case of the present nature when there is material with regard to a pattern of indoctrination, the choice of the person should not be treated as absolute for guiding the jurisdictional spectrum of habeas corpus. It is additionally urged that having regard to the antecedents of the petitioner (who claims to be the husband of the daughter of the first respondent) and his association with Popular Front of India, his should not be straight away allowed on the basis of the interaction with the lady until the larger issue is decided. The larger issue that has been focused is centered on the antecedents of the petitioner and his association with Popular Front of India. Be it stated that we have noted the submission of Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel as he has urged it today. Mr. Kapil Sibbal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has, however, objected to the allegations made against the petitioner.

3. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel undertakes that the first respondent shall produce his daughter before this Court at the time and date fixed by this Court i.e. 27.11.2017 at 3.00 P.M.

4. Any interim protection that was given to the family of respondent No.1 shall continue until further orders.

Dated : 27.11.2017

1. Heard Mr. Kapil Sibal and Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the NIA, Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. P.A. Noor Muhamed, learned counsel for respondent nos.7 and 8.

2. The matter was heard at length, keeping in view our earlier order dated 30th October 2017. At present, we intend to pass a brief interim order, keeping open all the issues that were raised and stated in the previous order.

3. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel for the first respondent, pressed his application (Crl.M.P.No.124312 of 2017) and submitted that the Court should interview Akhila @ Hadiya in camera and not in open Court. During the course of hearing, the debate continued in many a sphere but, as stated earlier, today we are not inclined to dwell upon the same but keep the matter pending.

4. After due deliberation, we thought it appropriate to interact with Akhila @ Hadiya and we have accordingly interacted with her in Court. We were told that though she can communicate in English, she may not be able to effectively articulate in that language. Hence, we requested Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel, who also represents the State of Kerala to assist in translating the questions posed to her in Court and the answers given by her.

5. The range of questions that we posed basically pertained to her qualifications, interest in studies, perception of life and what she intends to do in future. In response to our queries, she responded by stating that she has passed Class X from Higher Secondary School in K.V. Puram, Vaikom in Kottayam District and thereafter she was prosecuting her BHMS course in Shivaraj Homeopathy Medical College in Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu. She has also stated that she intends to continue her internship/housemanship which she had left because of certain reasons and her ambition is to become a full-fledged homeopathic doctor. She has expressed her desire to stay in the hostel and complete the course in the said college, if a seat is made available.

6. In the above view, we direct, as desired by her, that she be taken