The controversial love jehad case of Kerala took another turn on Tuesday when the Supreme Court rejected the National Investigation Agency (NIA’s) plea to consider the larger “conspiracy” angle of the marriage. The court said the marriage between a Hindu girl, who converted to Islam, and a Muslim man, remained legal irrespective of the alleged terror link of the groom. The Kerala High court had annulled the marriage saying the girl was “indoctrinated”.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Maninder Singh, representing the NIA — which was pursuing investigations into a larger conspiracy behind the girl’s conversion and her subsequent marriage — argued that the agency’s investigation would go waste if the court does not consider the love jehad angle while deciding on the validity of the marriage.
Incidentally, this case came to the Supreme Court following a Kerala High Court order annulling the marriage between Hadiya (name changed after conversion) and Shafin Jahan.
The Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said, “The NIA is free to investigate into any other aspect about the boy, but not on the marital status between them.”
The court was of the firm view that marriage must be kept separate from any criminal investigation being undertaken by the NIA. “If X and Y get married and X be of whatever conduct, their marriage cannot be subject matter of investigation,” the court said.
Appearing for the girl’s father, advocate Madhvi Divan submitted, “If the entire sequence of the case is seen, it can be seen that marriage is a device used to legitimise her illegal confinement.” Divan added when the girl’s father had approached the HC seeking whereabouts of his daughter in a habeas corpus petition, the daughter had not married.
The Bench, also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, said, “She is 24 years old and has told us that she does not want to go with you (father). Both parties have informed that they wish to remain married. Can we issue a writ against herIJ How does the court decide whether the person she has married is a good or bad human beingIJ”
The court added that when a girl has made an independent choice to marry a person, the court can only interfere at the instance of either boy or girl to examine whether the procedure was faulty. Moreover, the SC noted that the proceedings in the present case arose out of a habeas corpus petition where the woman has been found and is currently undertaking her studies.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal pointed out that his client Shafin Jahan’s reputation has been maligned by NIA’s investigation. The SC even allowed Sibal’s request to add Hadiya as a party to the proceeding while posting the matter for hearing on February 22.