Columnists
Respecting liberty
Supreme Court has set the right precedent by restoring freedom of choice for Hadiya
The Supreme Court, which came under attack by liberal thought police about keeping Hadiya, alias Akhila Asokan, away from her husband Shafin Jahan while studying a marriage annulment ruling of the Kerala Hight Court on the basis of a love jihad complaint by her father, has reunited the couple. In the process, it has shown that sensitivity, patience, reason and maturity are needed for a layered and righteous dispensation of justice. The court, after a thorough interaction with the 24-year-old, was convinced that as an adult she had willingly embraced Islam, married a Muslim man and wanted to live with him. While upholding the legitimate personal freedom of an adult citizen, it also allowed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to continue its probe into the love jihad allegations and establish if Shafin Jahan indeed had a hidden agenda in marrying Hadiya and if there was an insidious design in the conversion of faith that she might have been aware or unaware of. By de-hyphenating personal freedom from the alleged conspiracy, the apex court has proven that the rights of two adult people to be together cannot be infringed upon on the ground of societal taboos, an alleged threat perception or external bogeyism. If as a couple, they are indeed found guilty of anti-national activity, they will face legal consequences but that would not be linked to their personal decision to be together. The court acknowledged her right to live and love to her liking as an adult, a decision she had signed up for in a sound state of mind. But that doesn’t mean she or her husband have been declared innocent. It is in this respect that this verdict assumes significance.
The Supreme Court went about its task in a studied manner. The Kerala High Court had handed over Hadiya’s guardianship to her parents, who locked her down for 11 months and discontinued her studies to be a homoeopath at a college in Salem, fearing Shafin was colonising her mind and would ultimately take her away to join the ISIS ranks in Syria. The apex court then appropriately prioritised individual freedom of an adult while separating the particularities of whether all of her choices were born of her freewill or were they imposed given her supposed “conversion” or indeed if she had the ecosystem to decide for herself, free of pressure and insinuation. That’s why it freed Hadiya from her parents, even kept her away from her husband (“wife is not a chattel”, the court said) granted her the freedom to study at her homeopathic college in Salem and concentrate on her educational and economic rehabilitation. The logic then, though criticised by activists, was to boost her sense of self-worth that has been defined alternatively by her parents and husband. If the court released her from the oppressive control of her parents, it also didn’t send her back to her husband as a corollary. In fact, the court entrusted her guardianship to the Dean of the homoepathic college in Salem, asking him to allow her internship, participation in classes and accommodation. By providing Hadiya a neutral space, it restored her dignity as a woman, who should be making choices independent of referencing herself in the context of either her father or husband. And when she did so, the court respected her individual liberty. By equally urging the NIA to continue its probe, the apex court has also shown that it has not ignored the series of petitions by parents alleging the possibility of certain radical organisations inducing conversions among impressionable young people and encouraging proselytising “love jihad” operations. One misstep and the after-effects could be devastating. The court recognises Hadiya as an adult but has also made it obligatory for her to face the harshest consequences if indeed the charges are true.
0
