This article is written by Samriddha Ray, St. Xavier’s University. Kolkata pursuing 3rd Year BA LLB(Hons) during her internship at LeDroit, India.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Dipak Misra, C.J., A.M. Khanwilkar, and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Citation: (2018) 16 SCC 368
Date of Judgment: April 9, 2018
Introduction
The case of Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.—commonly referred to as the Hadiya case—marked a critical intersection of personal liberty, choice of religion, and the role of parental authority in adult relationships. The judgment involved a young woman’s decision to convert to Islam and marry a Muslim man, which was challenged by her father. It raised key constitutional questions around individual autonomy, freedom of conscience, and the role of the State in adult relationships. This case commentary examines the facts, legal issues, judicial reasoning, and its broader implications in constitutional law and personal liberty.
Brief Facts
Akhila Ashokan, a Hindu woman and the only child of K.M. Asokan, converted to Islam and assumed the name Hadiya. While studying medicine in Kerala, she came into contact with Muslim organizations and eventually married Shafin Jahan, a Muslim man, in 2016. Her father filed a habeas corpus petition before the Kerala High Court alleging that his daughter had been radicalized and illegally confined. The High Court, surprisingly, declared the marriage null and void on the grounds that it was a “sham” and returned her to her father’s custody.
Shafin Jahan appealed the High Court decision to the Supreme Court, invoking the fundamental rights of an adult woman to choose her religion, partner, and life course.
Akhila Ashokan, a young woman from Kerala, born to Hindu parents, decided to convert to Islam while pursuing her medical studies away from her parental home. After her conversion, she adopted the name Hadiya and came into contact with various Islamic organisations. She subsequently met Shafin Jahan, a Muslim man, through matrimonial circles and married him in 2016 in accordance with Islamic law.
Her father, Asokan K.M., objected to her conversion and marriage, claiming his daughter was manipulated and brainwashed by radical elements with possible links to extremist organisations. He approached the Kerala High Court by filing a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his adult daughter was being illegally detained and coerced.
Shockingly, the High Court did not merely determine whether she was under illegal detention but declared Hadiya’s marriage void, citing that she was vulnerable and incapable of making independent decisions. The High Court placed her back in her parents’ custody — effectively restricting her movement and her right to live with her husband.
Aggrieved by this annulment, Shafin Jahan filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s interference had violated Hadiya’s fundamental rights to life, liberty, and freedom of religion.
Legal Issues
1. Whether the Kerala High Court had the jurisdiction to annul the marriage of two consenting adults via a habeas corpus petition?
2. Can an adult’s choice in marriage and religion be overridden by parental concerns or societal perceptions?
3. Does the exercise of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution include the right to marry a person of one’s choice?
IV. Arguments by the Petitioner (Shafin Jahan)
• The annulment of the marriage amounted to a violation of Hadiya’s rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution.
• The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction in a habeas corpus proceeding by questioning the validity of a marriage between two consenting adults.
• Hadiya was not under any illegal confinement; she was exercising her free will.
Arguments by the Respondent (Asokan K.M.)
• Claimed that his daughter was brainwashed and possibly radicalized.
• Raised concerns over alleged links between her husband and radical Islamic organizations, asserting national security risks.
• Argued that her conversion and marriage were orchestrated as part of a larger pattern of “love jihad”.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the marriage between Hadiya and Shafin Jahan, holding that:
• Right to marry a person of one’s choice is intrinsic to Article 21.
• The High Court erred in annulling the marriage in a habeas corpus petition.
• Hadiya was a competent adult capable of taking her own decisions about religion and marriage.
• Justice D.Y. Chandrachud strongly criticized the paternalistic view adopted by the Kerala High Court and emphasized that constitutional courts must respect adult autonomy.
Judicial Reasoning
1. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The Court emphasized that the right to choose one’s partner is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty. Any interference by courts or parents violates the autonomy guaranteed by Article 21.
2. Jurisdictional Overreach by High Court: The use of habeas corpus to annul a marriage was deemed ultra vires, as the remedy lies in ensuring liberty, not marital adjudication.
3. Adult Autonomy: The Bench reiterated that the consent of an adult woman is paramount and cannot be substituted by parental or societal approval.
4. Right to Religion (Article 25): Hadiya’s conversion to Islam, irrespective of the motive, was held to be protected under Article 25, which grants every individual the freedom of conscience.
The decision drew primarily from constitutional protections:
Article 21, Constitution of India: Right to life and personal liberty includes the freedom to make intimate personal choices such as whom to marry.
Article 25, Constitution of India: Freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
Established precedents:
Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) – reaffirmed the right of adults to marry anyone of their choice.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – recognized privacy and decisional autonomy as core to Article 21.
Significance and Impact
• Personal Liberty & Autonomy: This case reaffirmed the constitutional protection of individual choice in matters of marriage, religion, and identity.
• Limits of State and Parental Interference: The decision marked a judicial pushback against paternalism, especially in adult relationships.
• Habeas Corpus Jurisprudence: It clarified the scope of habeas corpus, ruling out its misuse for adjudicating matters like marital validity.
• Religious Conversion and Freedom: The ruling upheld that conversion, even if for marriage, is a matter of personal belief protected by the Constitution.
Critical Analysis
The Hadiya case stands as a progressive assertion of constitutional morality against the backdrop of rising communal tensions and familial control over women’s choices. While the decision did not delve into the alleged “love jihad” narrative, it firmly placed individual agency above social constructs. Justice Chandrachud’s concurring opinion is particularly notable for emphasizing that “the right to choose one’s life partner is a facet of liberty and dignity under Article 21.”
However, the judgment also stops short of issuing specific guidelines to prevent such judicial overreach in the future or elaborating on protections for interfaith couples more broadly. Still, the ruling significantly counters attempts to dilute individual liberties under socio-political or religious pretexts.
The Supreme Court critically examined the High Court’s sweeping power to annul a marriage in a habeas corpus petition. The judges emphasized that habeas corpus is limited to securing a person’s liberty if they are unlawfully detained — it does not empower courts to decide the validity of a marriage between consenting adults.
The Court highlighted that Hadiya was an adult, educated woman who clearly and unequivocally stated her choice to marry Shafin Jahan and live according to her chosen faith. Her statements before the bench showed she was acting of her own free will.
The bench also underlined that the Constitution protects the right to convert as an aspect of freedom of conscience under Article 25. Moreover, the right to marry a person of one’s choice falls squarely within the ambit of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Justice Chandrachud, in his concurring opinion, observed that the High Court’s action was patriarchal and paternalistic, effectively treating Hadiya as if she were a ward needing protection rather than an adult citizen entitled to make her own choices.
The alleged fears of “radicalization” were held to be speculative. The Court stressed that personal liberty cannot be sacrificed on the altar of unsubstantiated social suspicions.
Conclusion
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. is a landmark affirmation of constitutional freedom, emphasizing that the personal liberty of adults—especially women—to choose their faith and life partner must be respected, protected, and promoted. In the face of parental or societal disapproval, the Constitution stands as the ultimate safeguard of individual rights. This case is a strong reminder that the judiciary must champion autonomy and dignity over paternalism and cultural conservatism.
In its final verdict, the Supreme Court restored the marriage between Hadiya and Shafin Jahan, quashing the Kerala High Court’s order as a clear violation of constitutional freedoms. The Court reaffirmed that an adult woman’s right to choose her religion, her partner, and the course of her life is protected by the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parents, society, or even the judiciary.No court or parent can override an adult’s freedom to decide whom to marry or what faith to follow — these are core aspects of personal liberty protected by the Indian Constitution.
The Hadiya case is now celebrated as a milestone for reinforcing individual autonomy against intrusive parental or societal control — a reminder that constitutional morality must triumph over social orthodoxy. It remains a significant precedent affirming that personal liberty and dignity are at the heart of India’s democratic fabric.
Citations
- Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 S.C.C. 368 (India).
- India Const. art. 21.
- India Const. art. 25.
- Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 S.C.C. 475 (India).
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
- Hadiya v. Union of India, (2018) 2 S.C.C. 351 (India).
1. Faizan Mustafa, Right to Choose a Life Partner: The Hadiya Case, Indian Express (Apr. 10, 2018), https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/hadiya-case-supreme-court-constitution-court-women-rights-faizan-mustafa-5131236/.
2. Alok Prasanna Kumar, Autonomy and the Indian Constitution: The Hadiya Case, 13 Socio-Legal Rev. 202 (2018).
