Commotion has Supreme Court adjourn Hadiya case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the hearing in the Kerala Love Jihad case till October 30 following heated arguments between lawyers of the two sides and the court disapproving political arguments. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Kanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud told senior counsel Dushyant Dave, appearing for petitioner Shafin Jahan, husband of Hadiya, “you have bulldozed your own case. Your argument is obnoxious and unforgivable. This kind of arguments cannot be allowed and tolerated. You are bringing in other issues when the matter is purely a question of law. The way you have argued is absolutely inexcusable.” 

Earlier Mr. Dushyant Dave told the court that the NIA was being used for political purposes in the case. "The NIA has no business in this case. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and BJP president Amit Shah went to Kerala and were using this case for a political propaganda,” Mr Dave told the court. He added that this case is about liberty of a woman and it should not be politicized. NIA counsel Maninder Singh (the Additional Solicitor General) took strong exception to Mr. Dave’s insinuations and said “counsel is adopting the trend to browbeat this court, which should not be allowed.” To a question from the bench whether the high court could nullify a marriage on a habeas corpus petition, the ASG said a three-judge HC bench had stated that if the person could not take independent decision, the court could take the role of a parent and pass appropriate orders and this judgment was relied by a two-judge bench to annul Hadiya’s marriage.

The CJI pointed out that the court could do so only if the person was suffering from psychological problems, mentally unsound or was not in a position to take independent decision. But in this case, when the girl says the marriage was with consent, the court could not nullify the marriage on the habeas corpus petition. Senior counsel V. Giri for Kerala said as a pure question of law, HC could not have nullified the marriage but it also depended on facts and circumstances. Referring to Mr. Dave’s comments the bench said” "We take strong objection to names of politicians being mentioned in the court. We will not allow political speeches to be made in the court. Don’t bring the executive or the legislature for your arguments.” The bench was hearing an application filed by Shafin Jahan for the recall of the order entrusting the probe to the NIA.  It was submitted that after former judge R.V. Raveendran declined to monitor the probe, the NIA could not proceed with the probe. The NIA had earlier submitted that there was an emerging pattern to religious conversions in Kerala and Shafin jahan’s case was not an isolated incident.