Hadiya accepts her marriage: SC:

Hadiya accepts her marriage: SC:

CONTEXT:

“Father cannot take custody of his daughter after the lady becomes adult,” Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, leading a three-judge Bench, observed in the Hadiya case.

INTRODUCTION:

• The Supreme Court on Monday observed that a High Court’s power to intervene in a Habeas Corpus petition and give custody of an adult woman to her father is restrained to circumstances when she is found to have been subjected to physical harm and torture or is psychologically depressed.

ABOUT THE CASE:

• The Bench was considering the legality of the Kerala High Court’s decision to annul the marriage of 24 year old Hadiya, who had converted to Islam and subsequently married Shafin Jahan, a Muslim.
• The High Court had also placed her in her father’s custody.
• The court’s decision was based on a habeas corpus petition filed by Hadiya’s father.
• The Petition was filed on an apprehension that Hadiya was allegedly coerced into adopting Islam as her religion and she was likely to be trafficked to Syria.

PERSONAL LIBERTIES:

• The apex court held that children when they become adult are entitled to their views.
• Kerala High court’s decision to grant custody of Haldia to her parents thoroughly undermined her liberty to choose her faith, possibly her life partner or her desire to take decisions about her own life.

SUPREME COURT’S EARLIER VERDICTS ON THE SAME ISSUE:

• The Supreme Court of India in its previous decision in Arumugam Servai vs. State of Tamil Nadu while dealing with the atrocities perpetrated by Khap Panchayats observed that it is illegal to interfere in marital choices of individuals and such interfere in marital choices of individuals and such interferences have to be ruthlessly stamped out.
• In essence, the Supreme Court criticized an institution/ideology that suppresses inter caste marriages and upheld the choice of the individual as such choice is a deeply personal act.

Article 21 secures two rights:

1)  Right to life

2) Right to personal liberty

• Article 21 applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. Thus, even a foreigner can claim this right. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner the right to reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e).
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a very familiar fundamental right, applicable to all persons under Part III of the Constitution of India

Related laws:

• In A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1996 SC 1234 the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was challenged. The question arose that whether Article 21 provides any procedure of law enacted by legislature, or such procedure should be fair or reasonable. The Supreme Court held that the Act is valid and according to the due process of the law.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 is a landmark case of the post-emergency period. This case witnessed a great transformation has come about in judicial attitude towards the protection of personal liberty after the traumatic experiences of the emergency during 1975-77 when personal liberty had reached in nadir.

WHAT IS PERSONAL LIBERTY?

•  Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”The Constitution’s Preamble secures to all its citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Thus the Constitution assures freedom of thought, word and deed.
• A person is essentially free to think about anything, and there can be no external control on the thought process except perhaps only in very broad terms, such as political or religious propaganda or insidious advertisement.

What is Habeas Corpus?

Habeas Corpus

• Habeas Corpus literally means ‘to have the body of’. Via this writ, the court can cause any person who has been detained or imprisoned to be physically brought before the court. The court then examines the reason of his detention and if there is no legal justification of his detention, he can be set free. Such a writ can be issued in following example cases:
• When the person is detained and not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours
• When the person is arrested without any violation of a law.
• When a person is arrested under a law which is unconstitutional
•  When detention is done to harm the person or is malafide.
• Thus, Habeas corpus writ is called bulwark of individual liberty against arbitrary detention. A general rule of filing the petition is that a person whose right has been infringed must file a petition. But Habeas corpus is an exception and anybody on behalf of the detainee can file a petition. Habeas corpus writ is applicable to preventive detention also. This writ can be issued against both public authorities as well as individuals.