Summary
Giving reasons for its 8 March 2018 order, the Supreme Court set aside the annulment of Shafin Jahan and Hadiya’s marriage in habeas corpus proceedings. Hadiya was an adult who freely affirmed her choice; parental opposition and apprehensions did not justify substituting judicial guardianship for her autonomy. The majority and concurring opinion protected choice of faith and partner and rejected the High Court’s exercise of parens patriae on these facts. Lawful NIA investigation of criminality could continue, but could not encroach upon marital status.
Issues
- Whether habeas corpus jurisdiction permitted annulment of the freely affirmed marriage of an adult.
- Whether parens patriae justified overriding Hadiya’s expressed choice.
- What limits applied to the continuing NIA investigation.
Held
- The purpose of habeas corpus was to determine illegal restraint and secure liberty. Once the competent adult freely expressed her wish and no lawful detention justified restraint, the Court should respect that choice. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by annulling the marriage rather than permitting Hadiya to go where she wished. (¶¶ Misra CJI, 18, Misra CJI, 23–30, Misra CJI, 55, Chandrachud J., 14–17, Chandrachud J., 25)
- Parens patriae is protective and exceptional; it could not be used to override this adult’s unequivocal free choice. Interaction with Hadiya disclosed no mental incapacity or vulnerability justifying the intervention, and the cited vulnerable-adult authorities did not apply to these facts. (¶¶ Misra CJI, 31–52, Chandrachud J., 23)
- Choice of faith and marital partner forms part of individual liberty and identity. Parental concern or social disapproval cannot supplant a competent adult’s lawful decision. The concurrence expressly located the right to marry a chosen partner within Article 21 while recognising that lawful conditions of marriage and dissolution remain regulated. (¶¶ Misra CJI, 27–29, Misra CJI, 53–55, Chandrachud J., 18–24)
- The NIA could continue investigating matters of criminality according to law, but the investigation could not encroach upon marital status. The concurrence clarified that the validity of the marriage was outside the investigation and the interim orders did not authorise interference with the couple’s lawful lives. (¶¶ Misra CJI, 2, Misra CJI, 56, Chandrachud J., 26–27)
Result
Appeal allowed in terms of the order dated 8 March 2018; High Court judgment annulled and Hadiya free to pursue her endeavours according to law. Lawful investigation of criminality may continue without encroaching upon marital status or investigating the marriage’s validity.