Hadiya spoke out in public as well as before the Court, that she had married Shafeen of her own free will and that she had been a virtual prisoner in the home of her parents. She stated that she wanted to return to her husband, continue with her studies and that she wanted ‘freedom’. However, the three-judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, judges Justice Khanwilkar and Justice Chandrachud decided to ‘proceed cautiously’ since they had never come across a case like this.
The judges asked that Hadiya return to her studies at Salem. They appointed the dean of the Salem-based homoeopathic college as Hadiya's guardian and granted him liberty to approach it in case of any problem. Meanwhile, the court directed NIA to investigate into the matter.
The first problem here is that the court has treated an adult woman as though she were a child who was unable to think or make decisions for herself. To think that a 25-year-old adult of sound mind needs to be in the custody of a ‘guardian’ or any sort is to impinge upon that adult’s most basic and fundamental rights to freedom, equality, privacy and religion.
It is unthinkable that such an intervention may even be contemplated by the court had it been a man in Hadiya’s place. This infantilizing of a grown woman and the complete disregard of her wishes paints a horrifying picture of patriarchy and the continuing attempt to control the volition and the destiny of Indian women.
The apprehension expressed in this matter is that this is a case of love jihad and that Hadiya has to be prevented from being indoctrinated into extremist ideologies, or even perhaps terror activities. This is based on the fact that her husband Shafeen Jahan is a member of Campus Front, the student outfit of the radical Muslim group Popular Front of India.
By that token, would the Courts also have intervened if religious identities were reversed; if a Muslim woman had married a Hindu man who was a member of a radical Hindu group?
Love jihad itself is a fallacious concept; it is simply an offshoot of the paranoia that exists in the minds of so many who view Islam with suspicion and all Muslims as extremists. The assumption that a woman would choose to convert to Islam or to marry a Muslim man only because she has been indoctrinated, or misguided militates not only against the autonomy of women but also tars an entire religion and its adherents with the same brush of suspicion and mistrust.
If the NIA, in fact, finds that Hadiya and/or her husband, and/or their companions are involved in any extremist or criminal activities, the authorities can most certainly take appropriate action in the matter. However, to say that a 25-year-old woman does not know her own mind, that she needs to have a ‘guardian’ is not just bizarre, it is insulting to the very idea of what it means to be a woman in this country. To direct the wishes and curtail the activities of an adult because of a vague apprehension of a crime that someone else may or may not commit seems extremely excessive. This also raises another question: will everyone now resort to court intervention when they do not like the choice of spouse that their offspring make?
By taking the purportedly pacifist middle road, the Supreme Court tried to please everyone and tried to be seen as taking no sides in the matter. In the event, the court pleased no one and has taken a side that is clearly anti-women. It has pleased neither Hadiya’s controlling father nor Hadiya who wishes to return to her husband. By taking the ‘cautious’ stand that it has, it has pandered to a patriarchal attitude and a misguided anti-Muslim mindset.
The court has done grave injustice to a citizen of the country by interfering in personal choices like marriage, conversion and liberty. The court has done severe injustice to a woman who has been asking for the restoration of her own individual liberty and right to make her own life decisions by taking away her agency and her right to choose in the matter.
Do you have something interesting you would like to share? Write to us at [email protected]
