Top Stories

Crucial Hearing Of Hadiya Case Tomorrow: Shafin Jahan Has Radical Mind Set ,Submits Hadiya’s Father, Jahan Likely To Move Contempt Against NIA

LiveLaw News Network
29 Oct 2017 7:14 AM GMT
Crucial Hearing Of Hadiya Case Tomorrow: Shafin Jahan Has Radical Mind Set ,Submits Hadiya’s Father, Jahan Likely To Move Contempt Against NIA
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

In a fresh Application, Mr. Asokan K.M, Hadiya’s father, has claimed that Shafin Jahan, has "a radical mind set with links to terrorist organization".

The case concerns Hadiya’s conversion to Islam, and her subsequent marriage to a Muslim man Shafin Jahan. In a judgment rendered on 25 May this year, a Division Bench of Kerala High Court had called her marriage a “sham”, and had annulled it, directing her return to the protective custody of her Hindu parents. Shafin Jahan filed an appeal against the Kerala High Court Judgment

A three Judge Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud will hear the case tomorrow. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave and Advocate Haris Beeran will appear for Jahan tomorrow.

Meanwhile Shafin Jahan, the petitioner is likely to file a Contempt Petition against National Investigation Agency. As per the office report in the case NIA has filed some investigation reports before the Court. During the last hearing Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave submitted that the NIA investigation in this case is illegal since the Supreme Court had ordered the investigation under the supervision of former Supreme Court Judge Justice RV Raveendran. However Justice Ravindran declined the request citing personal reasons. In such circumstances the NIA investigation in the case is against the August 16 order of the Supreme Court

In the Application seeking permission to file additional documents, Mr. Asokan alleges that Shafin Jahan is friends with one Mansi Buraaq, who has been charge-sheeted by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for having terrorist links.

"This is evidenced by several facebook posts wherein the petitioner has cheered the radical thoughts of Mr. Mansi Buraaq. Apart from this the petitioner and Mansi Buraaq are seen to be having a constant conversation through facebook," it contends.

Further, denying any claim of mistreating his daughter, Mr. Asokan relies on an article published by New Indian Express, wherein State Human Rights Commission Member Mr. K. Mohan Kumar had been quoted as stating that the Police had not found any instances of human rights violation at his house. The statement, he submits, was made after a thorough investigation of the matter.  

He, further, alleges that contributions to the tune of Rs. 80 lakhs have been collected by the Popular Front of India in order to aid the present litigation. It may be recalled here that in an earlier Application, Mr. Asokan had leveled allegations against the Popular Front of India/ Social Democratic Party of India (PFI/SDPI), contending that the Women’s Wing of the organisation had “completely taken control of Akhila”. He had further contended that the organisation has affiliations with several terrorist organisations and is involved in illegal and criminal activities.

The story so far

The Kerala High Court Bench comprising Justice Surendra Mohan and Justice Abraham Mathew had made some controversial observations like: “a girl aged 24 years is weak and vulnerable, capable of being exploited in many ways” and “her marriage being the most important decision in her life, can also be taken only with the active involvement of her parents”.

Hadiya’s husband had then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, challenging this decision. He had contended that the marriage was annulled without any legal basis, and had submitted, “…the impugned order is an insult to the independence of women of India as it completely takes away their right to think for themselves and brands them as persons who are weak and unable to think and make decisions for themselves. That the same is against their fundamental rights and should be struck down”.
Next Story