SHAFIN JAHAN v. ASOKAN K.M & Ors.

3.2 The duty of the Court is to uphold the right and not to abridge the sphere of the right unless there is a valid authority of law. Sans lawful sanction, the centripodal value of liberty should allow an individual to write his/her script. The individual signature is the insignia of the concept. In the case at hand, the father in his own stand and perception may feel that there has been enormous transgression of his right to protect the interest of his daughter but his view point or position cannot be allowed to curtail the fundamental rights of his daughter who, out of her own volition, married the appellant. Therefore, the High Court has completely erred by taking upon itself the burden of annulling the marriage between the appellant and respondent no.9 when both stood embedded to their vow of matrimony. The impugned order is set SHAFIN JAHAN v. ASOKAN K.M. & ORS. 961 aside, however, the investigation by the NIA in respect of any matter of criminality may continue in accordance with law. [Paras 54-56] [989-D-H] Per Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J. (Supplementing) HELD: 1. The ambit of a habeas corpus petition is to trace an individual who is stated to be missing. Once the individual appears before the court and asserts that as a major, she or he is not under illegal confinement, which the court finds to be a free expression of will, that would conclude the exercise of the jurisdiction. [Para 14] [996-B] Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi (1976) 3 SCC 234; Girish v. Radhamony K (2009) 16 SCC 360; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475: 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 350; Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396: [2011] 6 SCR 330; Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas (2018) 2 SCC 197; Kanu Sanyal v District Magistrate, Darjeeling (1973) 2 SCC 674: [1974] 1 SCR 621 – relied on State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev and Mohan Prasad Singh Deo AIR (1964) SC 685; Keshav Singh (1965) 1 SCR 413; T K Rangarajan v. Government of T.N. (2003) 6 SCC 581: [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 251; Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal (2002) 1 SCC 100 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 23; Dwarka Nath v. ITO, Special Circle D-ward, Kanpur [1965] 3 SCR 536; Naresh Shridhar Nirajkar v. State of Maharashtra [1966] 3 SCR 744; M V Elisabeth v Harwan Investment and Trading (P) Ltd. 1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 433 : [1992] 1 SCR 1003 – referred to.

2. The schism between respondent no.9 and her father may be unfortunate. But it was no part of the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide what it considered to be a ‘just’ way of life or ‘correct’ course of living for respondent no.9. She has absolute autonomy over her person. Respondent no.9 appeared before the High Court and stated that she was not under illegal confinement. There was no warrant for the High Court to proceed further in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. The purpose of the habeas corpus petition ended. The High Court A B C D E F G H 962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H entered into a domain which is alien to its jurisdiction in a habeas corpus petition. The High Court did not take kindly to the conduct of respondent no.9, noting that when it had adjourned the proceedings to issue directions to enable her to pursue her studies, it was at that stage that she appeared with the appellant only to inform the court of their marriage. How respondent no.9 chooses to lead her life is entirely a matter of her choice. The High Court’s view of her lack of candour with the court has no bearing on the legality of her marriage or her right to decide for herself, whom she desires to live with or marry. The exercise of the jurisdiction to declare the marriage null and void, while entertaining a petition for habeas corpus, is plainly in excess of judicial power. The High Court has transgressed the limits on its jurisdiction in a habeas corpus petition. In the process, there has been a serious transgression of constitutional rights. [Paras 16, 17] [998-D-G]

3. Deprivation of marital status is a matter of serious import and must be strictly in accordance with law. The High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to have embarked on the course of annulling the marriage. The Constitution recognises the liberty and autonomy which inheres in each individual. This includes the ability to take decisions on aspects which define one’s personhood and identity. The choice of a partner whether within or outside marriage lies within the exclusive domain of each individual. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable. The absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. The Constitution guarantees to each individual the right freely to practise, profess and propagate religion. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme. The law prescribes conditions for a valid marriage. It provides remedies when relationships run aground. Neither the state nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters. They form the essence of personal liberty under the Constitution. In deciding whether appellant is a fit person for respondent no.9 to marry, the High Court has entered into prohibited terrain. [Para 19] [999-C-G] SHAFIN JAHAN v. ASOKAN K.M. & ORS. 963

4. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights underscores the fundamental importance of marriage as an incident of human liberty. [Para 20] [999-H]

5. The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the right to life. This right cannot be taken away except through a law which is substantively and procedurally fair, just and reasonable. Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness. Matters of belief and faith, including whether to believe are at the core of constitutional liberty. The Constitution exists for believers as well as for agnostics. The Constitution protects the ability of each individual to pursue a way of life or faith to which she or he seeks to adhere. Matters of dress and of food, of ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership are within the central aspects of identity. The law may regulate (subject to constitutional compliance) the conditions of a valid marriage, as it may regulate the situations in which a marital tie can be ended or annulled. These remedies are available to parties to a marriage for it is they who decide best on whether they should accept each other into a marital tie or continue in that relationship. Society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners. [Para 21] [1000-C-F]