Case Brief: Shafin Jahan vs Ashokan K.M. & Ors. (Hadiya Marriage Case)
Citation
Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. & Ors., (2018) 16 SCC 368
Court
Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
Background
This case is famously known as the Hadiya Marriage Case, involving the constitutional rights of a woman (Hadiya, originally Akhila Ashokan) who converted to Islam and married a Muslim man (Shafin Jahan). The controversy centered around the legality of her conversion and marriage, with her father claiming it was a case of “love jihad”, and alleging that Hadiya was being radicalized.
The Kerala High Court annulled Hadiya’s marriage on the petition of her father, asserting she was a vulnerable adult and susceptible to indoctrination. This led to a habeas corpus petition and significant national attention, eventually culminating in an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Parties
Appellant: Shafin Jahan – Husband of Hadiya
Respondents: Ashokan K.M. – Father of Hadiya, and others (State and investigating authorities)
Issues Involved
Whether the Kerala High Court had the authority to annul a valid marriage between two consenting adults under Article 226?
Whether an adult’s fundamental right to choose her religion and life partner can be interfered with by the state or the family?
Whether the National Investigation Agency (NIA) could investigate the marriage as a case of "love jihad"?
Judgment Summary
1. Consent and Autonomy of an Adult Woman
The Supreme Court held that an adult woman has the absolute right to make decisions concerning her life, including the choice of religion and spouse. Hadiya was a 24-year-old competent adult, and her decision to convert and marry Shafin Jahan was an exercise of her fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
“The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution.” – Justice Chandrachud
2. Illegality of Annulment by High Court
The Supreme Court criticized the Kerala High Court for annulling a valid marriage between consenting adults, stating that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in a marriage merely because the parents disapproved or suspected external influence.
“Marriage and intimacy of personal relationships lie within a core zone of privacy which is inviolable.”
3. Role of NIA and Investigations
While the Supreme Court initially allowed the NIA to investigate the larger context (i.e., whether there were coercive conversions), it eventually concluded that such investigation cannot override individual autonomy in personal matters. The Court restored the marriage and dismissed the idea that marriage could be criminalized solely on the ground of religious conversion.
Key Constitutional Provisions Involved
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 25 – Freedom of Religion
Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Expression
Article 226 – Power of High Courts to issue writs
Important Observations from the Judgment
Justice Chandrachud (concurring opinion):
Individual autonomy is a cornerstone of freedom.
The High Court cannot act as parens patriae (guardian) to override a competent adult's decision.
The constitutional courts must protect fundamental freedoms, not erode them based on suspicion or societal morality.
Outcome
Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s judgment that annulled the marriage.
Restored the marriage of Hadiya and Shafin Jahan.
Reaffirmed the individual’s right to choose religion and partner as part of constitutional liberty.
Significance of the Case
A landmark judgment upholding personal liberty and autonomy, especially in cases of inter-faith marriages and conversion.
Clarified that courts cannot interfere in the marital choices of adults based on societal or parental preferences.
Strengthened the interpretation of right to privacy and choice post the Puttaswamy judgment (2017).
Related Case Laws (within Indian jurisprudence)
Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006)
Held that an adult woman is free to marry anyone of her choice, and such marriage cannot be called invalid even if inter-caste or inter-religious.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Right to privacy was declared a fundamental right, including intimate personal choices such as marriage.
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)
The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of individual autonomy in personal matters.
Conclusion
The Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan case is a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional morality over social or parental morality. The judgment made it clear that state or familial interference in an adult’s private life—especially in choosing religion or spouse—is unconstitutional. It remains a key precedent in matters of inter-faith marriages, right to privacy, and religious freedom.
RELATED Blog
0 comments