SC restores Hadiya’s marriage

The order had put the spotlight on “love jihad”, a controversial term coined by fringe Hindu groups to describe what they claim is a conspiracy by Muslim men to lure Hindu women into marriage.

The Supreme Court relied on its November 27, 2017 interaction with Hadiya when the latter was present in the court. It noted that Hadiya had “admitted” to her marriage with Jahan.

After the interaction Hadiya was freed from her father’s custody and sent to her college to complete the homeopathy course she was pursuing.

Reacting to the Supreme Court verdict, Asokan said he will continue his fight. He said he will soon file a review petition against the order after consulting his lawyers.

“I still believe that the marriage was a haphazard one and an excuse to take her abroad,” he said.

“Look, no father would like to send his daughter to the violence-hit areas of Afghanistan or Syria. I am an atheist and I don’t believe in any God. I would be the happiest if my daughter would have converted and married a Muslim youth in a proper way,” he said, adding he still believed that Jahan has some nexus with fundamentalist elements.

On a probe of the case by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the Supreme Court clarified that the anti-terror agency “may continue” its work in respect of any matter of criminality “in accordance with law.” This means the NIA cannot enquire into the legality of the marriage but can look into the allegations of terror links, if any.

It was the Supreme Court which in August last year ordered the NIA to probe the case. A bench headed by the then chief justice of India JS Khehar had issued the directive. Justices Khanwilkar and Chandrachud were members of the bench.

But in January this year, the bench headed by CJI Misra said the NIA cannot probe the legitimacy of the marriage. It even refused to peruse the report NIA had prepare in which it claimed that the alleged conversion and marriage of Hadiya to a Muslim man was not an isolated incident and there was a pattern of such marriages emerging in Kerala.

Earlier in the day, during the arguments, the bench cautioned against stepping into the realm of public law. “Marriage and personal relations are the core of plurality of India. We must do everything to protect it,” the bench said, responding to senior advocate Shyam Divan’s argument that the peculiar facts of Hadiya’s case justified the HC order.

Divan, appearing for Asokan, said public law has evolved to account for situations where a marriage may be intended to defeat a state interest or even a private interest. He argued that the expanding concept of law now takes into account the question of marriage fraud.

Justice Chandrachud differed and said courts could annul marriages, but the power should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where it is established that one of the parties was incapable of asserting free will. This would include cases of minors being forced to get married to elderly men or cases of trafficking.

Intervening, additional solicitor general Maninder Singh, appearing for the NIA, sought to stress that “marriage” in the case “was a disguise to further an offence”.

“This marriage was a ploy to get her out of court proceedings”, Singh said, narrating t he sequence of events leading to the HC order. He implored the bench to take a look at NIA’S status report.

The government is free to take action in case of a criminal act but a “good or bad marriage” cannot be annulled, the court told Singh.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for petitioner Jahan, rubbished the NIA’S arguments.

Even so, the party is well aware that a key challenge would be to counter the perception that it is against or had blocked the special status for the state.

The opposition is energised and believes the TDP’S decision is a big blow to the NDA, in terms of optics and perception, even if not in terms of numbers.

“A parochial autocratic alliance led by the Prime Minister could never accept the divergence of opinion or plurality which is the essence of India’s foundational values,” Congress’ chief spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala said. “The splintering of the NDA is only a reflection of that philosophy of the Prime Minister and the BJP. It doesn’t start or end here,” he said.

Another opposition leader said this would further embolden their stance in Parliament against the government. “They were up after the Tripura win. We are up after the TDP exit,” the leader of a key opposition party in the Lok Sabha said on condition of anonymity. ministry official said on condition of anonymity.

Officials said the India-france cooperation would not be parallel to that among the Indo-pacific quad, which brings together India, the United States, Japan and Australia.

“France has remained a benign power in the Indian Ocean and stood by India even during difficult times, including after the Pokharn II nuclear tests under former PM ( Atal Bihari)vajpayee,” said another official.

The agreement on logistics in the Indian ocean would help India expand its footprint in the region. From Reunion Island to the naval base Héron in Djibouti, on the Horn of Africa, to Abu Dhabi in the UAE, France has key naval bases.

Meanwhile, France has offered India 36 more Rafale fighter jets and to build six more advanced stealth submarines in India that will be an upgraded version of the Scorpene submarine. Six Scorpene-class submarines, designed by French firm Naval Group (formerly DCNS SA) are being built by Mazagon Dock Limited in Mumbai.