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

Bill against paper leaks eclipsed by Opposition push for Amit Shah reply

Published

25 mins ago

on

July 27, 2026

By

Amit Shah

The Monsoon Session of Parliament witnessed Opposition-Government scenes on Monday as Union Minister Dr. Jitendra Singh introduced the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 in the Lok Sabha.

The Bill aims to strengthen laws against examination paper leaks and organized cheating following the NEET-UG 2026 controversy.

During the discussions, the Opposition Congress demanded Home Minister Amit Shah’s reply to allegations of police excesses on July 20 during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) march to Parliament. Over 100 students were treated for injuries ranging from fractures to pellet wounds. CRPF personnel have confirmed seven rounds of pellets were fired and five rounds were fired at the students.

Congress leader Pawan Khera said such force should not have been used against the students and the Home Minister must reply to the allegations. Following disruptions, the House was adjourned several times.

The legislation seeks to impose stricter penalties for paper leaks, organized examination fraud, and other unfair practices. It also provides for faster investigations, time-bound trials, and the establishment of a STF to investigate major examination-related offenses. According to the government, the amendments are intended to improve transparency, protect the credibility of public examinations, and restore students’ confidence in the system.

The Congress and several Opposition parties demanded a detailed discussion in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, arguing that the government must be held accountable for both the examination irregularities and the police response.

The debate comes days after the resignation of former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, following weeks of nationwide protests over paper leaks and examination malpractice. While the Centre has announced reforms and introduced the amendment Bill, Opposition leaders maintain that legislative changes alone are insufficient without fixing responsibility for the controversy and the police action against students.

The government defended its response, stating that it has initiated investigations into examination fraud, introduced stricter legal provisions, and taken steps to strengthen the security of public examinations. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju urged MPs to participate in the debate and allow the House to function smoothly instead of disrupting proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

E20 Janta Party set to follow in CJP footsteps

Published

1 hour ago

on

July 27, 2026

By

Excise duty on petrol

After the success of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a new outfit, calling itself the E20 Janta Party, has come into being.

It trended across social media platforms on Thursday after the CJP claimed victory following the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, with supporters applauding the outcome as a major milestone in the ongoing student-led movement over alleged NEET-UG examination irregularities.

Thousands of posts, memes and videos flooded social media with users celebrating what they described as the growing influence of the CJP-led agitation. The term “E20 Janta Party” quickly gained traction on X and other platforms as motorists worried over the mixing of ethanol in petrol claimed they would themselves stage protests a la CJP.

Motorists all over India have been protesting against the fuel mixture given that their cars and motorcycles bought earlier had not been tuned for such increase in ethanol ratio. Some have claimed damage, ranging from engine damage to lower mileage. The government has not conceded the engine damage claim but has accepted that mileage may be compromised. Further, they have been agitating for a lowered fuel price for E20 since it has 20% ethanol but the government has shown willingness only to lower prices for the E85 blend which is being introduced slowly.

The public outpouring of support for the anti-NEET protests seems to have egged the anti-E20 people to come out of the woodwork though they have been vocal on social media. The Delhi taxi drivers association is also believed to have lent support to this cause. Transporters are also expected to join the protest slated on August 4 year since there are moves afoot to introduce isobutanol-diesel blend this year.

During the protests at Jantar Mantar, many activists had raised the ethanol issue time and again targeting Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari, an overzealous advocate for ethanol blending.

Continue Reading

India News

Parliament Monsoon Session 2026: Bill against paper leaks to be introduced in Lok Sabha today

The Lok Sabha will introduce and consider the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, proposing stricter punishment, fast-track courts and stronger safeguards against paper leaks.

Published

4 hours ago

on

July 27, 2026

By

The Lok Sabha is set to take up the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 for consideration and passage on Monday as the Centre moves to tighten laws against paper leaks and examination-related fraud.

Union Minister Dr Jitendra Singh will seek the House’s permission to introduce the Bill before moving it for consideration and passing during the day’s legislative business.

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha are scheduled to begin at 11 am with the Question Hour, during which ministers will respond to listed oral questions.

Bill proposes stricter action against paper leaks

The proposed amendment aims to strengthen transparency and integrity in the public examination system through stricter legal provisions while safeguarding the interests of students.

Among its major provisions are:

  • Imprisonment of up to 10 years for those found guilty.
  • A fine of up to Rs.10 crore.
  • Confiscation of assets of convicted offenders.
  • A mechanism to ensure verdicts in such cases are delivered within three months through fast-track courts.

The proposed changes follow the Union Cabinet’s approval of the legislation and related measures aimed at tackling paper leaks and examination fraud with stricter punishment and expedited trials.

Supreme Court judges amendment Bill also on agenda

Apart from the anti-paper leak legislation, the Lok Sabha is also scheduled to consider the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026.

Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal will move the Bill for consideration. It seeks to further amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.

Ministers to present implementation reports

Several Union ministers are also expected to place statements before the House on the implementation of recommendations made by various Parliamentary Standing Committees.

Among them:

  • Gajendra Singh Shekhawat will present an update on recommendations related to the Ministry of Tourism.
  • Jayant Chaudhary will report on recommendations concerning the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship.
  • Pankaj Chaudhary will table a statement on recommendations relating to the Ministry of Finance.
  • Suresh Gopi will present implementation updates on recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Petroleum and Natural Gas.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com