SHAFIN JAHAN versus ASOKAN K. M. & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 955 · Decided: 09-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
955
SHAFIN JAHAN
v.
ASOKAN K.M. & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2018)
APRIL 09, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Habeas Corpus: Writ petition of Habeas corpus filed by
respondent-father apprehending that her daughter (respondent
no.9) aged 26 years was likely to be transported out of the country –
Daughter of writ petitioner appeared before the Court and
categorically declined to go with her parents and expressed her
desire to stay with respondent no.7 – During pendency of writ
petition she entered into marriage with appellant – By impugned
order, High Court held that a girl aged 24 years is weak and
vulnerable and capable of being exploited in many ways and while
exercising parens patriae jurisdiction directed her custody to the
writ petitioner-father – With these directions, the High Court
declared the marriage between the appellant and respondent no.9
as null and void – On appeal, held: The expression of choice is a
fundamental right under Arts.19 and 21 of the Constitution, if the
said choice does not transgress any valid legal framework – Once
that aspect is clear, the enquiry and determination have to come to
an end – In a writ of habeas corpus, especially in the instant case,
it was absolutely unnecessary to reflect upon the social
radicalization – If there is any criminality in any sphere, it is for the
law enforcing agency to do the needful but as long as the detenu
has not been booked under law to justify the detention which is
under challenge, the obligation of the Court is to exercise the
celebrated writ that breathes life into our constitutional guarantee
of freedom – In the case at hand, the father in his own stand and
perception may feel that there has been enormous transgression of
his right to protect the interest of his daughter but his view point
cannot be allowed to curtail the fundamental rights of his daughter
who, out of her own volition, married the appellant – Therefore,
High Court completely erred by taking upon itself the burden of
annulling the marriage between the appellant and respondent no.9
[2018] 4 S.C.R. 955
955
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
when both stood embedded to their vow of matrimony – Constitution
of India – Arts.19 and 21.  (Per Dipak Misra, CJI and A. M.
Khanwilkar, J.)
Habeas Corpus: Role of writ court in entertaining writ petition
of Habeas corpus – Held: The pivotal purpose of the writ of habeas
corpus is to see that no one is deprived of his/her liberty without
sanction of law – It is the primary duty of the State to see that the
said right is not sullied in any manner whatsoever and its sanctity is
not affected by any kind of subterfuge – The role of the Court is to
see that the detenu is produced before it, find out about his/her
independent choice and see to it that the person is released from
illegal restraint – The issue is different when the detention is not
illegal. (Per Dipak Misra, CJI and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.)
Habeas Corpus: Writ of Habeas Corpus – If alleged detenu
appears before the writ court and states that she was not under
illegal confinement, there is no warrant for the Court to proceed
further in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226 – Exercise of
jurisdiction to declare the marriage null and void while entertaining
a petition for habeas corpus is plainly in excess of judicial power –
Constitution of India – Art.226. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
Constitution of India: Art.21 – Right of adult to marry a
person of his or her own choice – Jurisdiction of High Court to
annul marriage while entertaining writ of habeas corpus – Held:
Deprivation of marital status is a matter of serious import and must
be strictly in accordance with law – High Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Art.226 ought not to have embarked on the course
of annulling the marriage – The Constitution recognises the liberty
and autonomy which inheres in each individual – This includes the
ability to take decisions on aspects which define one’s personhood
and identity – The choice of a partner whether within or outside
marriage lies within the exclusive domain of each individual –
Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is
inviolable – The absolute right of an individual to choose a life
partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith – The
Constitution guarantees to each individual the right freely to
practise, profess and propagate religion – Choices of fai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.