Hadiya ‘love jihad’ case: Petitioner’s counsel refers to Shah and Yogi, irked SC defers hearing

Shefin Jahan with Akhila alias Hadiya (File photo)

HEARING in the controversial Kerala marriage case in the Supreme Court was adjourned abruptly on Monday after the petitioner’s counsel referred to the political marches of BJP President Amit Shah and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in the state and the bench headed by Chief Justice of India took strong exception to it.

The court, which deferred the hearing to October 30, reiterated the question whether the High Court could annul the marriage.

“We will not hear you today…You are in Supreme Court, You are bringing all sorts of people. You have to restrict yourself to Constitutional questions”, the bench, which also included Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, told senior counsel Dushyant Dave who referred to recent rallies by Shah and Yogi in Kerala.

Dave represented the petitioner Shafin Jahan whose marriage to Hadiya (a Hindu girl Akhila converted to Islam) was annulled by the Kerala High Court. Her journey from Akhila to become Hadiya

Jahan had on September 20 approached the apex court seeking recall of its order directing the NIA to investigate his marriage. It was alleged by the bride’s father that the woman was recruited by Islamic State’s mission in Syria and Jahan was only a stooge.

Also Read | Hadiya’s father speaks: She is my life, have nothing against conversion but this is shady

Opening his arguments, Dave said “there was great sensitivity to this matter” and referred to President Ram Nath Kovind’s statement on Sunday that lauded the state for its pluralistic character.

“We are not interested in politics on what CPM or BJP does…There is serious attempt to vitiate the atmosphere in the matter of inter-faith marriages. Interfaith marriages are part of our culture, tradition,” Dave said.

His objection was to an impleading application filed by the mother of a girl from Kerala who was converted and married and is now believed to be in ISIS-controlled territory in Afghanistan. Dave said “this impleadment application is an attempt to sustain the matter…to sustain the NIA investigation.”

He then went on to refer to rallies by Adityanath and Shah in Kerala and said said, “Your Amit Shah goes to Kerala and holds rally…Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath went to Kerala and makes statement about Love Jihad.”

The bench didn’t seem impressed and Justice Chandrachud told Dave, “We agreed to hear you. You are a senior counsel. Don’t speak like this.”

Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh, appearing for the NIA, objected to Dave’s comments and said “He has a pattern. He shouts and browbeats others”.

Dave replied: “At least, I do it inside court, not outside, like your government.” This invited more protests from the ASG. Dave added: “They are using it to campaign (politically)”.

Said Justice Chandrachud: “We do not have to comment on political personalities. If we start doing that, how do we insulate ourselves from politics? We keep the legislative and the executive away from our hearings and functions. You should reduce the pitch of the submissions made here”.

Dave sought to know “am I not entitled to say political parties are using this”.

CJI replied: “Whatever you can say you can’t. You cannot make a speech.”

The court told the counsel that they had adjourned many matters to hear the Kerala matter but will not hear it today after what had happened. “You have actually bulldozed the case on your side with your arguments”, the CJI added.

Dave responded: “If your Lordships don’t want to hear it, don’t. But don’t put it in my mouth.”

CJI Misra meanwhile repeated the question he had raised during the last hearing too: “whether in a Habeas Corpus petition, a High Court cannot annul a marriage”.

He added, fundamentally, the willingness of person need not be doubted unless he of she is not in the frame of mind to give such consent.

To this, the ASG said the High Court had referred to five judgments which had said that “parental authority may be invoked by High Court in certain cases…if person is incapable of taking decision”. He added that in this case, there was “indoctrination” and the people behind it are trained in hypnosis.

Dave protested saying the NIA probe was “wholly unsustainable”.

The court asked senior counsel V Giri who appeared for the Kerala Government what the legal position in the case should have been. Giri answered that according to the “purely legal” view, the HC could not have annulled the marriage but added that facts and circumstances of the case may have played a role.