Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud JJ.
Shafin Jahan – Appellants
Versus
Asokan K.M. & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5777 of 2017)
Decided On : 09-4-2018
(c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Inherent and plenary powers – Exercise must ensure justice under and in accordance with law. (Para 68)
AIR (1964) SC 685; (1965) 1 SCR 413; (2003) 6 SCC 581; (2002) 1 SCC 100; (1965) 3 SCR 536; (1966) 3 SCR 744; 1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 433 – Relied upon
(d) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Habeas corpus – For a girl over eighteen years of age, no fetters could be placed on her choice on where to reside or about the person with whom she could stay – Once the individual appears before the court and asserts to be a major, and further that she or he is not under illegal confinement, if true, that would conclude the exercise of the jurisdiction. (Para 69, 70)
(1976) 3 SCC 234; (2009) 16 SCC 360; (2006) 5 SCC 475; (2011) 6 SCC 396; (2018) 2 SCC 197; (1973) 2 SCC 674 – Relied upon
(e) Constitution of India – Article 226 and 21– Annulment of marriage while hearing application of habeas corpus – In excess of jurisdiction – Right to marry a person of one's choice – Integral to Article 21 – Parens Patriae jurisdiction is exercised in case of persons who are incapable of asserting a free will such as minors or persons of unsound mind – Instantly Hadiya a 24 year old girl pursuing BHMS course not such a person – Held, validity of the marriage between Shafin Jahan and Hadiya shall not form the subject matter of the investigation by NIA. (Para 72, 74, 76, 78, 81)
(2017) 10 SCC 1; Writ Petition(Civil) No. 215 of 2005 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
High Court had annulled the marriage between appellant No.1, Shafin Jahan and respondent No.9, Hadiya alias Akhila Asokan, in a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Appeal against the said decision was allowed by Supreme Court.
This judgment records the reasons.
Finding of the Court:
High Court exceeded its jurisdiction.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The right of an adult individual to choose their life partner, including the right to marry a person of their choice, must be respected and cannot be overridden by parental or societal concerns (!) (!) .
Parental love or concern cannot justify infringing upon the autonomy of an adult, especially when the individual is a major and asserts their free will (!) (!) .
The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution must ensure justice in accordance with law and should not encroach upon personal liberties or fundamental rights (!) (!) .
The court's authority to intervene in personal matters such as marriage is limited; it cannot annul a valid marriage of a consenting adult unless there is a violation of law or a lack of capacity (!) .
The doctrine of parens patriae, which allows the state to act as a guardian for persons unable to care for themselves, is to be exercised only in exceptional cases, such as minors or individuals with mental incapacity, and not to interfere with the rights of competent adults (!) (!) .
The exercise of the parens patriae jurisdiction must respect individual autonomy, privacy, and personal liberty, and should only be invoked when the individual is unable to make free decisions due to incapacity or vulnerability (!) (!) .
The right to faith, belief, and personal choices regarding marriage, including conversion and religious practices, are protected under constitutional rights and cannot be dictated or annulled by the state or courts based on societal or religious norms (!) (!) .
The courts must avoid overreach into the private and intimate decisions of individuals, particularly in matters of marriage and personal faith, as these are protected freedoms under the Constitution (!) (!) .
The validity of a marriage, especially between consenting adults, should not be questioned or annulled unless there is a clear violation of legal conditions or incapacity, and such matters are best left to the individuals involved and the law (!) (!) .
Investigations into criminal activities or associations should not extend to the core personal and marital rights of individuals unless there is a direct and lawful basis, and the integrity of personal choices must be preserved (!) (!) .
The exercise of judicial power must be cautious and limited to prevent infringing on fundamental rights, and courts should not act as super guardians or overstep into areas reserved for individual autonomy (!) (!) .
The principles of liberty, privacy, and individual self-determination are fundamental and must be upheld, especially in cases involving adult persons capable of making their own decisions (!) (!) .
These points collectively emphasize the importance of respecting individual autonomy, limiting judicial overreach, and safeguarding constitutional rights related to personal liberty, marriage, faith, and privacy.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, CJI [for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.]
Rainbow is described by some as the autograph of the Almighty and lightning, albeit metaphorically, to be the expression of cruelty of otherwise equanimous "Nature". Elaborating the comparison in conceptual essentiality, it can be said that when the liberty of a person is illegally smothered and strangulated and his/her choice is throttled by the State or a private person, the signature of life melts and living becomes a bare subsistence. That is fundamentally an expression of acrimony which gives indecent burial to the individuality of a person and refuses to recognize the other's identity. That is reflection of cruelty which the law does not countenance. The exposé of facts in the present case depicts that story giving it a colour of different narrative. It is different since the State that is expected to facilitate the enjoyment of legal rights of a citizen has also supported the cause of a father, an obstinate one, who has endeavoured immensely in not allowing his daughter to make her own choice in adhering to a faith and further making Everestine effort to garrotte her desire to live with the man with whom she has entered into wedlock. The thought itself is a manifestation of the idea of patriarchal autocracy and possibly self-obsession with the feeling that a female is a chattel. It is also necessary to add here that the High Court on some kind of assumption, as the impugned judgment and order would reflect, has not been appositely guided by the basic rule of the highly valued writ of habeas corpus and has annulled the marriage. And that is why the order becomes a sanctuary of errors.
2. On 08.03.2018, this Court had allowed the appeal passing the following order:
"Leave granted.
Heard Mr. Kapil Sibal and Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Haris Beeran, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
The reasoned judgment will follow. The operative part of the order reads as follows:
Considering the arguments advanced on both sides, in the facts of the present case, we hold that the High Court should not have annulled the marriage between appellant No.1, Shafin Jahan and respondent No.9, Hadiya alias Akhila Asokan, in a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We say so because in the present appeal, by special leave, we had directed the personal presence of Hadiya alias Akhila Asokan; she appeared before this Court on 27th November, 2017, and admitted her marriage with appellant No.1.
In view of the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. Respondent No.9, Hadiya alias Akhila Asokan is at liberty to pursue her future endeavours according to law. We clarify that the investigations by the NIA in respect of any matter of criminality may continue in accordance with law."
3. Presently, we proceed to state the reasons.
4. The facts which are necessary to be stated are that Ms. Akhila alias Hadiya, respondent No.9 herein, aged about 26 years at present, the only child of Sh. Asokan K.M., respondent No.1 herein, and Smt. Ponnamma, had completed a degree in Homeopathic Medicine, BHMS (Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery) from Shivaraj Homeopathic Medical College, Salem in Tamil Nadu. While pursuing the said course, she was initially residing in the college hostel and later she started staying in a rented house near her college together with five other students among whom were Jaseena and Faseena, daughters of one Aboobacker. During the college holidays, Hadiya used to visit the house of Aboobacker and there was also an occasion when both Jaseena and Faseena came to reside with Hadiya at the house of Asokan, respondent No.1 herein. On 6th December, 2015, Hadiya's
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
