Cops Haven't Come A Long Way From Days Of 'Dred Scott' Case: Allahabad High Court Slams Taking 'Kabza' (Possession) Of Woman

The Court took strong exception over the fact that a fard or memo of possession relating to a woman had been prepared by the UP Police claiming that she was being taken into 'possession' in an attempt to show that she was not being 'arrested'.

In a strongly worded order, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar said that 'Kabza' is a word which connotes most closely to the English word 'possession' in legal and common parlance and it is used for chattels, not humans.

"The idea and the action - the idea more than the action are both abhorrable. To think that in the twenty first century, a man of contemporary society, working in the ranks of the Police, can think that a human being can be taken into possession, on the basis of a memorandum of possession or fard, makes it seem to us that at least the persons concerned in this transaction have not come a long way from the days of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)", the bench remarked.

For context, in Dred Scott case, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts.

Additionally, the bench also opined about the evidentiary value of Date of Birth mentioned in the Adhaar document and said that DOB is recorded on "mere saying" of the applicant and cannot be treated as valid proof of age.

"…date of birth entered in the Aadhar Card hardly affords any basis to ascertain a person's date of birth. Dates of birth mentioned on the Aadhar Card are recorded for the mere saying of the head of a family or the person who is applying for the Card to be made. It is not cross-checked by any authentic record such as a date of birth certificate from the Corporation or other competent Body", the Court said.

These observations were made in a habeas corpus writ petition filed by a inter-religious couple (Muslim Girl and Hindu Boy) seeking to quash the girl's detention at a protection home.

'Kabza' is for Chattels, not humans

The High Court first took note of the police misconduct. Essentially, despite a stay order passed by the High Court on August 13, 2025, restraining the police from arresting Saniya, the IO took her into custody on September 8, 2025.

Later, in an attempt to circumvent the court's order, the police recorded in the Case Diary that they were not 'arresting' her, but only taking her into 'possession'. The officer wrote in Hindi: "(Woman's name) ko... Kabza Police liya jata hai" [(woman) is taken into police possession]. They even prepared a memorandum (fard) of possession, which they made her husband, sign.

Taking 'serious umbrage' at this conduct in its detailed order, the Court observed that the police officers considered themselves "very clever by indulging in a crude and uneducated play of words".

The bench added that for a police officer to think a human being can be taken into possession via a fard suggests that "the persons concerned in this transaction have not come a long way from the days of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)".

Terming the police's idea and action as 'abhorrable', the Court directed the National Commission for Women to inquire into the matter and take proceedings against the erring policemen "who seem to be much at guilt and in the need of much reformation".

Essentially, during the hearing, the girl's father, relying on school records that showed her date of birth as April 25, 2009, had alleged she was a minor (17-year-old) and had been kidnapped. However, the Court found her to be a major by relying upon medico-legal certification.

Briefly put, when the question arose regarding the age of the girl, the State and her father relied on a school register to claim she was a minor.

However, the School Principal appeared in HC with the original admission register and he admitted to the Bench that Saniya had joined the school directly in Class V after being educated at home.

Crucially, the Principal also informed the Court that the date of birth that has been entered in the school records is based on the DOB as mentioned in the Aadhar Card.

Rejecting this evidence, the High Court observed that dates of birth on Aadhaar Cards are recorded "for the mere saying of the head of a family or the person who is applying for the Card to be made" and is not even cross checked.

Thus, relying on medical ossification tests which opined Saniya to be about eighteen years old, the Court declared her to be a major and set her at liberty after she expressed an unequivocal choice to stay with her husband.

In its final order of November 28, the Court said that being an adult, the girl cannot be interfered with by anyone, including the State acting at her parents' instance.

"The detenue's stand, being unequivocal, that she wants to go and stay with (Husband), whom she wants to marry, she is at liberty to do so. She is free to marry (Husband) and stay with him and marry him according to such rites and rituals which both of them consider appropriate. They can stay together, even otherwise. This is a right which inheres in every citizen of India who is a major and it cannot be interfered with by anyone, including the State, acting at someone's instance like the detenue's parents", the Court remarked as it parted with the order.

With this observation, the habeas corpus petition succeeded and was allowed.