English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

A study: Two division benches of the same court, two decisions on similar cases

Published

9 years ago

on

Hadiya

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]‘Love Jihad’ has been an issue that has been manufactured by extreme right wing activists in the recent past, targeting inter-faith marriages. The target of such fringe hoodlum groups have been to show that Hindu girls (or even Christian girls) are being lured into marriage by Muslim youths, with the idea of involving them in terrorist activities. One such case – commonly known as the Hadiya case – has become famous. This case originated from a division bench of the Kerala High Court.

An almost identical case has arisen in the same court, handled by a different division bench.

Without comment, it would be interesting to see how the two benches have handled the cases.

First, the original Hadiya case

Hadiya , then K M Akhila, was a homeopathy student in Malappuram before she married Shefin Jahan on December 19 last year. They got introduced through a Muslim matrimonial website in August 2016. Two days after their wedding, Hadiya was asked to appear before the Kerala High Court in a habeas corpus petition filed by her parents. Her parents had approached the court alleging forceful conversion.

The court then granted Hadiya’s custody to her father KM Asokan and also directed the Kottayam district police superintendent to provide them protection. The High Court had annulled the marriage on May 24.

Hadiya, then 25, was not happy. Jahan, 27, challenged the high court verdict in the Supreme Court. On August 10, the Supreme Court asked the National Investigation Agency to look into this. That Supreme Court bench was headed by the then Chief Justice J S Khehar.

The top court also ordered the formation of a committee under the chairmanship of former SC judge Justice RV Raveendran. However, Raveendran had refused to head the committee.

Despite Hadiya being an adult, the high court had maintained that the girl was “weak and vulnerable” and susceptible to exploitation, and that “marriage being the most important decision in her life, can also be taken only with the active involvement of her parents.”

The other case

Now the other love jihad case, handled by another division bench of the same court.

On Thursday (October 19) this bench slammed the various religious groups’ campaign against what they call ‘Love Jihad’. The court bench said: “Every case of inter-religious marriage shall not be portrayed on a religious canvas and create fissures in the communal harmony otherwise existing in God’s own country Kerala”.

This division bench, comprising Justices V Chitambaresh and Satish Ninan said this in case – another habeas corpus petition – filed by Anees Hameed, a 25-year-old from Kannur, who was seeking the release of his wife Sruthi Meledath from her family’s custody. This bench ruled that Sruthi be allowed to stay with Hameed and dismissed the woman’s parents’ petitions, as well as a helpline run by a Christian group that wanted to implead itself in the case.

The court said it will “protect the individual liberty of even the lowest citizen of this country and unlock the doors of freedom if there is a faintest doubt that she is unlawfully confined or illegally detained.”

Like Hadiya, Sruthi too had stated in court that after the marriage her family had forcibly kept her away from her husband. Sruthi had been confined to Siva Sakthi Yoga Vidya Kendram near Kochi, which reportedly helps “reconvert” Hindu women who have embraced other religions.

In this case the court’s observations are critical. The bench said: “We are appalled to notice the recent trend in the state to sensationalise every case of inter-religious marriage as either love jihad or ghar wapsi. Disturbing news is coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriages are threatened with violence or violence is actually committed on them.

“In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country and once a person becomes a major, he or she can marry whosoever he or she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage, the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter. But they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence, and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage,’’ the bench said.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Assam clears Uniform Civil Code bill, becomes third state after Uttarakhand and Gujarat

Assam has officially become the third state in India to pass the Uniform Civil Code bill. The legislation was cleared by the state assembly on Wednesday despite strong objections raised by opposition lawmakers who claimed it impacts minority rights.

Published

30 mins ago

on

May 27, 2026

By

himanta

The Assam Legislative Assembly on Wednesday passed ‘The Uniform Civil Code, Assam, 2026 Bill’, making it the third state ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to adopt a uniform legal framework after Uttarakhand and Gujarat.

Opposition flags concerns over rights during house debate

The bill was taken up for final passage in the state assembly on Wednesday, sparking a heated discussion among lawmakers. During the legislative floor debate, opposition MLAs strongly voiced their concerns regarding the proposed law, stating that the legislation will hurt and compromise the fundamental rights of a certain section of society.

Despite objections from the opposition benches, the treasury benches cleared the passage of the bill, cementing Assam’s position as the latest state to move away from diverse personal laws in favor of a uniform code. Media reported that the legislative move follows extensive political discussions in the state surrounding civil regulations. With this enactment, Assam joins Uttarakhand and Gujarat, which have previously passed their respective uniform civil codes.

Continue Reading

India News

Case registered against Mamata Banerjee over controversial 2025 religion remark

A formal police case has been registered against Trinamool Congress supremo Mamata Banerjee in Siliguri, West Bengal. The complaint alleges that her 2025 “Ganda Dharm” remark targeted Hinduism and hurt the religious sentiments of the community.

Published

8 hours ago

on

May 27, 2026

By

Mamata Banerjee

A formal police complaint has been lodged against Trinamool Congress (TMC) chief Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal’s Siliguri. The legal action stems from an alleged derogatory remark regarding Hinduism made during an Eid congregation in Kolkata in 2025.

The case was registered following a complaint filed by a local lawyer, Rinki Chatterjee, who alleged that the former Chief Minister’s comments deeply hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus globally.

Legal charges and complaint details

The police have invoked multiple sections under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Banerjee, including Section 351(1) for criminal intimidation, Section 352 for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, and Section 353 for promoting feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill will between different communities.

According to the complaint, the controversy traces back to an Eid event organized on Kolkata’s iconic Red Road in 2025. While delivering a speech targeting the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Banerjee purportedly referred to the version of Hinduism championed by the political rival as “Ganda Dharm” (filthy religion).

Chatterjee stated in her complaint that labeling Sanatan Dharma in such a manner at a religious gathering was “absolutely unacceptable”. The complainant also pointed to other instances where senior TMC leaders allegedly targeted Hinduism, adding that Banerjee made indirect threats to the Hindu community during the 2026 West Bengal Assembly election campaign to influence voters through intimidation.

Political responses to the FIR

The reported statements had previously drawn sharp criticism from the state BJP leadership last year, including strong objections from current Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari. However, this FIR represents the first formal legal action taken regarding the speech.

When approached for a response, Atri Sharma, a lawyer and general secretary of the TMC’s Darjeeling unit, declined to comment officially as a party spokesperson. However, he noted that many within the party internal circles found the remarks inappropriate at the time they were spoken. Sharma acknowledged that holding a high public office required restraint and affirmed that every individual holds the moral right to pursue legal remedies.

Continue Reading

India News

Enforcement Directorate raids former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s residence in money laundering probe

The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday carried out searches at the Thiruvananthapuram residence of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and 11 other locations in connection with a money-laundering probe registered in 2024.

Published

8 hours ago

on

May 27, 2026

By

The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday conducted extensive searches at the Thiruvananthapuram residence of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. The action comes as part of an ongoing money-laundering investigation, with the central probe agency executing simultaneous raids at 12 separate locations across the state under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Broad Crackdown in Financial Probe

The central agency’s operations focused significantly on Vijayan’s rented residence in the state capital, alongside eleven other locations, including premises in Kochi, Kozhikode, Kannur, and Bengaluru. This major enforcement action was initiated shortly after the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition on Tuesday, which had been filed by Cochin Minerals And Rutile Ltd (CMRL) seeking to quash the ongoing ED proceedings.

The roots of the financial investigation trace back to a PMLA case registered in 2024. The core allegation involves an estimated illegal payment of ₹1.72 crore made between 2017 and 2019 by a private entity, Cochin Minerals And Rutile Ltd (CMRL), to Exalogic Solutions, an IT firm owned by Vijayan’s daughter, T Veena.

According to investigators, the financial transactions took place despite the IT firm allegedly rendering no services to the private company. Apart from the financial probe agency’s scrutiny, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is also independently conducting an inquiry into the wider financial transactions of the matter.

Political Developments

The searches also covered locations linked to other political and executive figures associated with the matter, including premises connected to senior CMRL executives. While the ruling party has previously described the investigations as politically motivated, the central agency has intensified its probe following the high court’s refusal to grant interim relief to the private firm. The case has sparked intense political debate, with opposition parties using the findings to allege financial irregularities, while local party leaders maintain that the transactions were part of a legitimate business arrangement.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com