2018 (4) TMI 1887 - SC - Indian Laws

Right to marry a person - parens patriae power - constitutional challenge on the ground of right to privacy. As per Dipak Misra, C.J.I. and A.M. Khanwilkar, J. HELD THAT - t is obligatory to state here that expression of choice in accord with law is acceptance of individual identity. Curtailment of that expression and the ultimate action emanating therefrom on the conceptual structuralism of obeisance to the societal will destroy the individualistic entity of a person. The social values and morals have their space but they are not above the constitutionally guaranteed freedom. The said freedom is both a constitutional and a human right. Deprivation of that freedom which is ingrained in choice on the plea of faith is impermissible. Faith of a person is intrinsic to his/her meaningful existence. To have the freedom of faith is essential to his/her autonomy; and it strengthens the core norms of the Constitution. Choosing a faith is the substratum of individuality and sans it, the right of choice becomes a shadow - Non-acceptance of her choice would simply mean creating discomfort to the constitutional right by a Constitutional Court which is meant to be the protector of fundamental rights. Such a situation cannot remotely be conceived. 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 the Respondent No. 9 when both stood embedded to their vow of matrimony. The investigation by the NIA in respect of any matter of criminality may continue in accordance with law - Appeal allowed. As per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. The High Court, in the present case, has treaded on an area which must be out of bounds for a constitutional court. The views of the High Court have encroached into a private space reserved for women and men in which neither law nor the judges can intrude. The High Court was of the view that at twenty four, Hadiya is weak and vulnerable, capable of being exploited in many ways . The High Court has lost sight of the fact that she is a major, capable of taking her own decisions and is entitled to the right recognised by the Constitution to lead her life exactly as she pleases. The concern of this Court in intervening in this matter is as much about the miscarriage of justice that has resulted in the High Court as much as about the paternalism which underlies the approach to constitutional interpretation reflected in the judgment in appeal. The superior courts, when they exercise their jurisdiction parens patriae do so in the case of persons who are incapable of asserting a free will such as minors or persons of unsound mind. Interference by the State in such matters has a seriously chilling effect on the exercise of freedoms. Others are dissuaded to exercise their liberties for fear of the reprisals which may result upon the free exercise of choice. The chilling effect on others has a pernicious tendency to prevent them from asserting their liberty. Public spectacles involving a harsh exercise of State power prevent the exercise of freedom, by others in the same milieu. Nothing can be as destructive of freedom and liberty. Fear silences freedom. This Court by its interim order had allowed the National Investigation Agency to assist the Court. Subsequently, NIA was permitted to carry out an investigation. We clarify that NIA may exercise its authority in accordance with the law within the bounds of the authority conferred upon it by statute - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's annulment of the marriage.
2. Application of the parens patriae jurisdiction.
3. The scope and limits of habeas corpus jurisdiction.
4. The constitutional rights of an adult to choose their life partner.
5. The role of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in the investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Annulment of the Marriage:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court of Kerala erred in annulling the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 9 in a habeas corpus petition. The High Court's decision was based on an incorrect understanding of its jurisdiction and the facts of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's role in a habeas corpus petition is limited to determining whether the individual is in illegal confinement. Once it was established that Hadiya was not under illegal confinement and had married out of her own free will, the High Court should have closed the case. The annulment of the marriage by the High Court was deemed an overreach and a violation of the constitutional rights of the individuals involved.

2. Application of the Parens Patriae Jurisdiction:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's invocation of the parens patriae jurisdiction, which is traditionally applied to protect those who cannot care for themselves, such as minors or individuals with mental incapacities. The Court noted that Hadiya, being a major and mentally competent, did not fall within this category. The High Court's application of this doctrine to annul the marriage was inappropriate and beyond its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that the parens patriae doctrine should be invoked only in exceptional cases and not to interfere with the personal choices of competent adults.

3. The Scope and Limits of Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the primary purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to provide an expeditious remedy against illegal detention. The Court emphasized that once it is established that the individual is not illegally detained, the court's jurisdiction ends. The High Court's further actions, including the annulment of the marriage, were outside the scope of habeas corpus jurisdiction. The Supreme Court underscored that the individual's right to liberty and freedom of choice must be respected, and the court should not impose its own views on the individual's personal decisions.

4. The Constitutional Rights of an Adult to Choose Their Life Partner:
The Supreme Court highlighted the fundamental right of an adult to choose their life partner, which is protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that this right includes the freedom to marry a person of one's choice and that societal or parental disapproval cannot override this constitutional guarantee. The Court noted that the High Court's interference with Hadiya's choice of partner was a violation of her fundamental rights. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that personal autonomy and the right to make intimate decisions are central to individual liberty and dignity.

5. The Role of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in the Investigation:
The Supreme Court allowed the NIA to continue its investigation into any matter of criminality, provided it does not encroach upon the marital status of Hadiya and Shafin Jahan. The Court clarified that the investigation should focus on any alleged criminal activities and not on the validity of the marriage. This distinction was made to ensure that the investigation does not interfere with the couple's right to live their lives as law-abiding citizens.

Separate Judgment by Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.:
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. concurred with the judgment and added his observations, expressing anguish over the miscarriage of justice and emphasizing the need to protect individual liberties from paternalistic interventions. He highlighted the importance of respecting the autonomy of adults and ensuring that constitutional freedoms are upheld. He also underscored that the High Court's actions were a serious transgression of constitutional rights and that personal choices regarding marriage and faith lie within the core zone of privacy, which is inviolable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order annulling the marriage, and emphasized the importance of respecting individual autonomy and constitutional rights. The investigation by the NIA was permitted to continue, provided it does not interfere with the marital status of the individuals involved.