English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Kerala Love Jihad case – SC orders NIA probe after agency claims ‘pattern’ emerging in Kerala

Published

on

Supreme Court

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Former Supreme Court judge, Justice RV Raveendran asked to supervise the NIA probe, Kerala police informs apex court that it wants to withdraw from the investigation

After a brief lull, the Kerala ‘love jihad’ case is now back in the limelight with the Supreme Court, on Wednesday, being informed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) that the alleged conversion and radicalisation of a Hindu woman – Hadiya alias Akhila – and her marriage to a Muslim man – Shafin Jahan – was not an “isolated incident” but part of a “pattern” emerging in the southern state.

With the Kerala Police informing the apex court division bench of Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud that it wanted to withdraw from the investigation in the case and was prepared to hand over the probe, the NIA has now been told investigate the incident and whether it has any link with the involvement of global terror conglomerate – Islamic State (IS).

Noting that “everyone wants a fair probe” in the case following the “serious remarks made by the (Kerala) High Court”, the Bench ordered that the NIA probe will be supervised by retired Supreme Court judge, Justice RV Raveendran. The Bench also said that before it takes a final view of the probe’s finding, it will “require the presence of the girl (Hadiya)” to put forth her version of the events that led to her purported marriage and the claims of ‘love jihad’ that it led to

Love Jihad

Hadiya’s marriage to Safin Jahan had been annulled by the Kerala High Court on May 24, 2017, which had termed the union as a case of “love jihad”. Curiously though, Hadiya had told the Kerala High Court that she had consented to her marriage with Shafin Jahan, and that there was no forceful conversion. But the court wasn’t convinced. Jahan had then moved the Supreme Court to challenge the annulment of his marriage with Hadiya.

Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jahan, objected to the Supreme Court’s decision of handing over the probe to the NIA. “The NIA has made many U-turns in the past. How reliable is a probe by the NIA? The girl must be called in by the Supreme Court”, Sibal told the Bench.

However, the Bench informed Sibal that : “if we speak to the girl and she says that she was forcibly converted and married off, the case is over. It will be unfair to you. So we will speak to her last before passing any orders. First we will see what you all have to say”.

Prior to Sibal’s submissions, senior advocate V Giri, appearing for the Kerala police, informed the apex court that the State police was willing to withdraw from the investigation and was ready to hand over all documents related to the case to the central probe agency. “There is already a special investigation team and the probe is proceeding. But let the NIA now complete the investigation,” Giri told the division bench.

Giri’s submission came after CJI Khehar told him that the court had asked the NIA for inputs in the case because it was an agency from outside the State. “We thought you [the Kerala police] may take sides. So we asked the NIA”, CJI Khehar said.

Last week, despite objections by Jahan, the Supreme Court ordered the Kerala Police to share with the NIA the probe details of the case. “We want the whole picture. Let the whole picture come before us. Why should anybody doubt the NIA”, the Supreme Court had said.

The Bench had observed that it gathered the “impression that the petitioner (Shafin Jahan) does not desire the correct and independent view of the controversy” to be brought before the apex court, and said: “We want to see whether it is an isolated case or a larger issue is involved (sic)”.

Background to the Kerala Love Jihad case:

In May this year, the Kerala High Court had declared as “null and void” the marriage of 24-year-old Hindu woman – Hadiya alias Akhila – who had converted to Islam to marry a Muslim man – Shafin Jahan – in December 2016, terming the union as “sham”. It had ordered Hadiya to be placed in her parents’ protective custody.

Akhila was a homeopathy student in Kerala when she converted to Islam. Shafin Jahan had met her with his family in August 2016 in response to her posting on a marriage website and they got married last December.

Jahan, 27, challenged the Kerala High Court order in the Supreme Court, saying that the order was an “an insult to the independence of women in India”. He had requested the Supreme Court to order Hadiya’s father to produce her in court while claiming that she had converted to Islam of her own volition two years prior to their marriage.

Hadiya’s father, however, had said that she was a “helpless victim” trapped by a “well-oiled racket” which used “psychological measures” to indoctrinate people and convert them to Islam. He had also alleged that Jahan is a criminal and that Hadiya had been trapped by a network with connections to the Islamic State.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Rahul Gandhi, Centre clash over Ladakh deepens as eight Congress MPs suspended

The Lok Sabha saw repeated disruptions after Rahul Gandhi was denied permission to speak on the Ladakh issue, leading to protests and the suspension of eight Congress MPs.

Published

on

Chaos engulfed the Lok Sabha on Tuesday as tensions between the opposition and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party intensified over Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s attempt to raise the issue of the India-China military standoff in Ladakh. The disruption eventually led to the suspension of eight Congress MPs for the remainder of the parliamentary session.

The confrontation unfolded after the Leader of the Opposition tried, for the second consecutive day, to read out excerpts from an unpublished book by former Army chief General M.M. Naravane that refer to the 2020 Ladakh crisis. The Speaker denied permission, citing procedural rules, triggering protests from opposition members.

Several MPs protested by refusing to speak when called upon, expressing solidarity with Gandhi. The uproar forced repeated adjournments of the House and, according to reports, involved members throwing pieces of paper towards the Chair.

Following the disorder, eight Congress MPs — including Hibi Eden, Amarinder Raja Warring and Manickam Tagor — were suspended. Warring later questioned the action, saying the protests were in response to Gandhi being denied the opportunity to speak despite having authenticated the document and submitted it to the House.

The BJP strongly criticised the Congress leadership. Party MP Anurag Thakur accused Rahul Gandhi of undermining Parliament and insulting the armed forces, alleging that the opposition was attempting to distract from recent government actions, including the presentation of the Union Budget. He also said the BJP would move a formal complaint seeking strict action against the suspended MPs.

Outside Parliament, Gandhi accused the ruling party of trying to silence him, saying he was prevented from speaking on the sensitive issue of the India-China border. He argued that he had followed procedure by authenticating the content he wished to quote but was still denied permission.

What happened a day earlier

On Monday, the Speaker had also disallowed Gandhi from reading the excerpts, with senior ministers countering his remarks during the debate. Government sources later maintained that the Congress leader violated House rules by attempting to introduce unpublished material into the official record without prior approval.

When proceedings resumed on Tuesday, Gandhi again raised the matter, insisting that the information had been authenticated. As the Speaker moved on to other members, two opposition MPs from the Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress declined to speak, signalling their support for him.

Rahul Gandhi targets India-US trade deal

Separately, Gandhi also criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi over what he described as a lack of transparency surrounding the India-US trade deal. He questioned how negotiations that had reportedly remained unresolved for months were concluded overnight and alleged that the agreement compromised the interests of Indian farmers, particularly in agriculture and dairy.

Government sources, however, rejected these claims, stating that sensitive sectors would remain protected and that the deal does not undermine farmers’ interests. They said contentious issues, including market access, had been carefully handled.

The opposition has demanded full disclosure of the terms of the agreement, even as both sides continue to trade sharp political accusations inside and outside Parliament.

Continue Reading

India News

Mamata Banerjee alleges mass voter deletions in Bengal, targets Election Commission

Mamata Banerjee has accused the Election Commission of deleting thousands of voter names without due process, raising questions over the timing of the exercise ahead of elections.

Published

on

Mamata Banerjee

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Monday intensified her attack on the Election Commission over voter roll revisions, alleging that a large number of names have been deleted without due process as the state heads towards elections.

Addressing party workers, Banerjee claimed that 40,000 voters’ names were removed from her constituency alone, alleging that the deletions were carried out unilaterally and without giving voters a chance to be heard.

“In my constituency they have deleted 40,000 voters’ names unilaterally… Even a murderer gets a chance to defend himself,” she said.

Allegations against election officials

The chief minister directly accused an election official, alleging political bias and irregular conduct in the revision process. She claimed that voter names were being removed while officials sat in Election Commission offices, calling the process illegal.

“They cannot do it, it is illegal. 58 lakh names have been unilaterally deleted,” she said, echoing claims earlier made by Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee.

Banerjee also alleged that individuals described as “micro-observers” had been appointed illegally, claiming they had no role under the Representation of the People Act and were linked to the BJP.

‘Alive but marked dead’

In a dramatic moment during her address, the chief minister asked those present who had been marked as deceased in the voter lists to raise their hands.

“See, they are alive but as per the Election Commission they are dead,” she said.

She further alleged that names were being deleted under the category of “logical discrepancy,” adding that even noted economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen had earlier been questioned regarding the age of his mother.

Questions over timing of voter roll exercise

While stating that she did not oppose the Special Intensive Revision process in principle, Banerjee questioned the timing of the exercise.

“I have no problem with SIR, but why do it on the eve of elections? Why not after elections?” she asked.

Reiterating confidence in her party’s organisational strength, the chief minister said she was prepared to fight the issue politically and democratically.

Continue Reading

India News

Supreme Court raps Meta over WhatsApp privacy policy

The Supreme Court warned Meta that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy while hearing a case related to WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy and a CCI penalty.

Published

on

WhatsApp

The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered strong observations against Meta, the parent company of WhatsApp, over the messaging platform’s 2021 privacy policy, warning that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya said the court would not allow the sharing of user data in a manner that exploits Indians, remarking that privacy protections under the Constitution must be followed. “You can’t play with privacy… we will not allow you to share a single digit of our data,” the Chief Justice said during the hearing.

The matter relates to a plea challenging the law tribunal’s decision that upheld a ₹213 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on WhatsApp, while also permitting certain data-sharing practices for advertising purposes.

Court questions accessibility of privacy policy

During the hearing, the court raised concerns about whether WhatsApp’s privacy policy could realistically be understood by large sections of the population, particularly those who are poor or not formally educated.

The bench questioned if users such as roadside vendors, rural residents, or people who do not speak English would be able to comprehend the policy’s terms. It also expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of opt-out clauses, stating that even legally trained individuals find such policies difficult to understand.

Describing the alleged data practices as potentially exploitative, the court said it would not allow private information to be taken without genuine and informed consent from users.

The Chief Justice also cited a personal example, suggesting that users often begin seeing advertisements shortly after exchanging sensitive messages on WhatsApp, such as medical conversations, raising questions about how user data is being utilised.

Arguments from government and Meta

Appearing for the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticised WhatsApp’s data-sharing practices, calling them exploitative and commercially driven. In response, the Chief Justice said that if companies cannot operate in line with constitutional values, they should not do business in India.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Akhil Sibal, appearing for Meta and WhatsApp, countered the allegations by asserting that all WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted and that the company cannot read message content.

Background of the case

In November 2024, the CCI ruled against WhatsApp over its 2021 privacy policy, holding that the company had abused its dominant market position by effectively forcing users to accept the updated terms.

The watchdog objected to WhatsApp making continued access to messaging services conditional on permitting data-sharing with other Meta platforms, leading to the imposition of a ₹213 crore fine. Meta has deposited the penalty.

In January 2025, Meta and WhatsApp challenged the CCI order. Later, in November 2025, the law tribunal lifted a five-year restriction on data-sharing while maintaining the financial penalty.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com