LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.

Criminal Appeal · 2018 INSC 222Decided 8 Mar 2018
Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2018
Chief Justice Dipak Misra · Justice A.M. Khanwilkar · Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Background

Akhila, a 24-year-old homeopathy graduate from Kerala who converted to Islam and took the name Hadiya, left her parental home after disagreements with her family over her change of faith. Her father filed a habeas corpus petition in the Kerala High Court alleging she was being illegally confined and might be trafficked abroad. While the petition was pending, Hadiya married Shafin Jahan. The Kerala High Court, instead of simply determining whether she was being illegally held, went further and annulled her marriage, treating her as vulnerable to exploitation despite her being a legally competent adult who told the court she had married by her own free choice. Shafin Jahan appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that a habeas corpus court's only job is to determine whether a person is being illegally detained; once Hadiya appeared before the Court and confirmed she was not confined and had married of her own free will, the purpose of the habeas corpus petition was over, and the High Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever to go on and annul her marriage. The Court held that the right to choose one's own life partner, and one's own faith, is part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, lying within an individual's core zone of privacy and autonomy that neither family, society, nor the State can dictate, citing the Court's own recent nine-judge privacy ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. It held the High Court's view of Hadiya as "weak and vulnerable" at 24 reflected an impermissible paternalism that had no place in constitutional adjudication, and that whether or not she married Shafin Jahan was simply irrelevant to the habeas corpus proceeding. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment annulling the marriage, and clarified that while the National Investigation Agency's separate probe into any possible criminality could continue, the validity of Hadiya's marriage itself could not be the subject of that investigation and the agency could not use it to interfere in the couple's lawful life together.

Lesson Learnt

A habeas corpus case can only decide whether someone is being illegally confined: courts cannot use it as a vehicle to approve or disapprove of an adult's personal choices in marriage or faith; the right to choose one's own spouse and religion is a core part of the fundamental right to life and liberty that no family member, court, or investigating agency can override.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case