Love jihad' case hearing on October 30

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the hearing in the Kerala love jihad case till October 30 following heated arguments between the lawyers of the two sides and the court disapproving political arguments.

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Kanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud told senior counsel Dushyant Dave, appearing for the petitioner Shafin Jahan, husband of the girl Hadiya alias Akhila, “You have bulldozed your own case. Your argument is obnoxious and unforgivable. This kind of arguments cannot be allowed and tolerated. You are bringing in other issues when the matter is purely a question of law. The way you have argued is absolutely inexcusable.”

Earlier, Mr Dushyant Dave told the court that the National Investigation Agency was being used for political purposes in the case.

“The NIA has no business in this case. Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath and BJP president Amit Shah went to Kerala and were using this case for a political propaganda.”

This case is about liberty of a woman and it should not be politicised.” Counsel for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Maninder Singh said “the counsel is adopting the trend to brow beat this court, which should not be allowed.”

To a question from the bench whether the high court could nullify a marriage in a habeas corpus petition, the ASG said a three-judge bench of the high court had stated that if the person could not take independent decision, the court could take the role of a parent and pass appropriate orders and this judgment was relied by a two-judge bench to annul Hadiya’s marriage.

The CJI pointed out that the court could do so only if the person was suffering from psychological problems, mentally unsound or was not in a position to take independent decision. But in this case, when the girl says the marriage was with consent, the court could not nullify the marriage in a habeas corpus petition.

Senior counsel V. Giri for Kerala said as a pure question of law, the high court could not have nullified the marriage in a habeas corpus petition but it also depends on facts and circumstances.

Referring to Mr Dave’s comments, the bench said “We take strong objection to the names of politicians being mentioned in the court. It would not allow “political speeches” to be made in the court. Don’t bring the Executive or the Legislature for your arguments.”

The bench was hearing an application filed by Shafin Jahan for recall of the order entrusting the probe to the NIA.

It was submitted that after former judge R.V. Raveendran declined to monitor the probe, the NIA could not proceed with the probe. The NIA had earlier submitted that there was an emerging pattern to religious conversions in Kerala and Shafin jahan’s case was not an isolated incident.

The Kerala government however, opposed the NIA probe and said it was not necessary as the State had investigated the case for two months and found that there was no link to religious conversions.   

During the last hearing on this case early this week, the Supreme Court had observed that “prima facie”, the high court could not have nullified the marriage of a Hindu woman with a Muslim man after her conversion. The court also remarked that a father cannot have control over a 24-year-old woman and that such a claim can’t be made in respect of a major.

Shafin Jahan said Akhila remains to be in the custody of her father against her will and that he has completely cut off any and all contact between the Detenue and the outside world. In the interest of justice it would be appropriate and just to recall the order of this Court dated 16.8.2017 to the extent of the directions to NIA to investigate this matter, and direct the Detenue to be produced before this Court, he said in the application.