Freedom first 

Freedom first 

Context

The Supreme Court’s order allowing Hadiya freedom of movement was long overdue

What has happened?

The Supreme Court has recorded the consent given by Hadiya alias Akhila to return to her college at Salem in Tamil Nadu and directed the college to allot her a hostel room where she can stay and complete her 11-month internship to become a homeopath

Author states that by doing so the Supreme Court has protected her freedom to choose her religion and her freedom of movement

Backdrop

• Hadiya, whose original name was Akhila, had been practising Islam for nearly two years, and had to face judicial proceedings twice at the instance of her father, who alleged that her conversion was involuntary and part of a ploy by communal groups to radicalise her and send her abroad to join the Islamic State
• The High Court had been all set to pass orders to enable her to go to Salem for the same purpose, when on December 21, 2016, she disclosed that a couple of days earlier she had married a man called Shafin Jahan. The High Court then annulled her marriage, calling it a sham and a diversion to wreck the proceedings

Reservations against HC order

There were serious reservations about the High Court’s observations to the effect that a woman’s marriage requires the involvement of her parents and that even if she had attained the age of majority she was still at a “vulnerable age”.  It is doubtful if similar remarks would have been made if the convert was a man. From this perspective, the Supreme Court’s order is to be welcomed as it gives primacy to a woman’s freedom to choose her manner of living

Investigation can continue

The Supreme Court has also made it clear that the National Investigation Agency can continue its ongoing probe. This preserves the scope for a lawful investigation into the suspicion that there is an organised campaign to recruit young people for overseas operations

Conclusion

Any probe into this phenomenon need not be at the cost of individual liberty. The possibility of indoctrination (the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically) cannot be a reason for undermining personal autonomy.