Parents Can't Invoke Habeas Corpus Against Adult Daughters' Choice To Lead Life Of Celibacy: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a plea for habeas corpus preferred by three fathers, who alleged that their adult daughters were being illegally detained by the nuns of Monastery of Holy Ruah (MHR), a religious congregation that was dissolved in 2023 by the Archdiocese of Thrissur.The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian noted that the alleged detenues are educated and there were no reasons to suspect that they are not acting on their free will.The Court said that merely because the fathers do not approve of their daughters joining in a congregation that does not spiritually align with their own, that, by itself, is no ground to issue a writ of habeas corpus.“The petitioners before us are apparently members of Church(es) coming under the Archdiocese of Thrissur, and it appears to us that their anxiety is with regard to their daughters having joined a congregation that, at present, is not spiritually aligned with the ideologies of the Archdiocese of Thrissur. However, that by itself cannot be a reason for us to ignore the agency inherent in the alleged detenus that informed their decision to join the Monastery of Holy Ruah (MHR). We have also not been shown any material that would suggest that the daughters of the petitioners are being detained by…Nuns, who have taken their holy vows and embraced a life of spirituality. The mere disgruntlement of a parent with the decision of his adult daughter, who has chosen a life of celibacy by responding to the call of the Divine, cannot be the basis for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus,” the Court observed.The petitioners submitted that their daughters joined the MHR when it was recognized by the Archdiocese of Thrissur. Thereafter, due to the actions of the alleged detainer nuns, the Archdiocese passed a decree holding that the MHR will no longer have the rights, privileges and duties under the Archdiocese. Because of this, the petitioners contended that continued association of their daughters with the congregation is not out of free will but due to the coercion of the respondent nuns. They said that their daughters were unduly influenced by the said nuns to take on grueling rituals, which are not in their or their family's best interests.The petitioner cited decisions of the Division and Full Benches to contend that parents continue to have authority to aid and advise even their major children and that the latter's constitutional liberties are not unlimited.After hearing the parties, the Court went on look into the scope of the writ of Habeas Corpus as laid down in various decisions and remarked:“The writ of Habeas Corpus is a writ that provides an extraordinary remedy which should not be permitted unless ordinary remedies have already been exhausted and proven to be ineffective. It is a discretionary remedy in the sense that the High Court has a discretion not to exercise the jurisdiction depending on the facts of the case. That said, it is trite that once the High Court finds that the detention alleged in the writ petition is illegal, the writ of Habeas Corpus would become available to the detenu as of right and cannot be withheld on the court's discretion.”After referring to Apex Court decisions that stressed upon individual autonomy, freedom of self-determination and free will, the Court observed that any interference by the State into the private domain of an individual would have a 'chilling effect'.“In our view, the choice of the alleged detenus with regard to their beliefs or the congregation that they must join is a matter that rests exclusively within the private domain of the individual concerned. Interference by the State in such matters would have a chilling effect on the exercise of constitutional freedoms by the individual concerned. It is therefore that, as the “sentinels on the qui vive”, this Court must tread with caution when called upon to issue writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus alleging illegal detention of the person for whose benefit the writ is sought. The court must look to the material produced before it and satisfy itself that there is some substance in the allegation that the respondent is in actual physical control over the body of the person who is the subject matter of the writ petition or that there are reasonable grounds on which it may be concluded that the respondent will be able to assert that control,” the Court added.Finding that there was no material on record to show that the petitioners' daughters are being held without their free will, the Court felt it appropriate not to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The fact that the alleged detenues signed statements to the effect that they are continuing with MHA on their own free will when police authorities made enquiries also influenced the Court's decision.Thus, it dismissed the writ petition.Case No: W.P(Crl.) No. 500 of 2026Case Title: Joju George and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker)...

Parents Can't Invoke Habeas Corpus Against Adult Daughters' Choice To Lead Life Of Celibacy: Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

Tags