A close analysis of the judgements of the court has revealed a telling pattern. The married couples whose applications for police protection got rejected were either in an inter-faith relationship or those who did not have a valid marriage registration proof. It is also crucial to note that couples who were from the same faith or religion, as far as they had completed their marriage registration process, even if they did not have a valid marriage certificate, faced no such hurdles in getting police protection. This dichotomy has resulted in a situation where inter-caste couples within the same religion are readily able to secure the necessary protection from the courts while their counterparts who come from different religions are finding it difficult to secure police protection for their safety and liberty.

The culture of honour killing is not uncommon within conservative Indian families and the lack of protection for interfaith couples in the face of real-life threats not only affect their right to life and personal liberty but also their right to peaceful marriage, uninterrupted from external forces.

In the judgements delivered by Justice Saral Srivastava in January and the March 5 judgment of Justice Renu Agarwal, the judges have cited non-compliance with the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 as one of the reasons for denying police protection to the interfaith couples. Prior to the implementation of this law, which was brought in to check what the Hindu-right calls “Love Jihad”, interfaith couples were still able to secure the protection. Though there are also other reasons for denying the protection, we are witnessing a growing trend where Allahabad HC is asking couples to first comply with the Conversion Act of 2021, and solemnize their marriage and register for the marriage certificates in compliance with the Act, in order to secure the protection of the law.

Citizens for Justice and Peace is the lead petitioner that has challenged the 2021 Uttar Pradesh Anti-Conversion law and a similar law passed in eight other states. The first petition challenging the anti-conversion laws of was filed in December 2020, which argued against the constitutionality of these laws enacted by the states of Uttar Pradesh (which initially issued it through an ordinance before enacting the Act), Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh (WP Criminal Nos 428/2020). In December 2021, it filed another petition, this time challenging the similar laws passed by Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Haryana and Karnataka (WP Criminal Nos 14/2023). CJP argued that the said laws are violative of Article 14 (due process), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 25 (freedom of conscience and religion), and therefore unconstitutional.

The laws were challenged as excessively restrictive on the constitutional provisions related to fundamental rights on the following issues: autonomy of women and both partners on the issue of free choice, right to privacy, freedom to practice and propagate religion, secularism, and for creating gender stereotypes and excessive criminalisation. These laws essentially “aim” to restrict religious conversion for the sole purpose of marriage or vice versa, but their implementation reveals that they have been weaponised to target interfaith couples and marriages, thereby restricting the ability to marry a person of one’s choice and jeopardising the security of such partners.

In the meantime, the number of states which started enacting such laws grew as the petitions challenging these laws have been kept pending in the Supreme Court with attempts made by CJP for an urgent hearing and stay on the application of these laws. T Notably, CJP’s writ petition challenging UP’s anti-conversion law was last listed on April 25, 2023, almost a year ago.

Let us look at some of the cases to understand the implications for the fundamental rights of persons living in Uttar Pradesh.

Case Study

On January 10, 2024, the Allahabad HC bench of Justice Saral Srivastava dismissed a petition filed by one Ayesha Parveen for securing police protection. The judgement noted that, “It is a case of interfaith marriage as petitioner no.2 follows Muslim religion whereas petitioner no.1 is Hindu. In the instant case, there is no compliance of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, therefore, solemnisation of marriage between petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 is not in accordance with law.” Thus, the court dismissed their petition. The judgement in the case does not cite any particular provision(s) of the law, which is jurisprudentially unsustainable. It remains completely silent on the issue whether conversion law would kick in even if the inter faith couples did not want to get converted and were willing to practice their religions as before the marriage. But even if one of the partners was willing to convert their religion, this does not prevent courts from granting protection to such couples in the interim.

The judgement maybe read here:

Recently, in the case of Devu G Nair vs State of Kerala the Supreme Court issued guidelines in which it asked courts to stay away from moralising the issue of inter-faith, inter-caste, and LGBTQ+ couples and emphasised on providing immediate interim protection to such couples. The relevant portion of the guidelines mentioned that, “The court must acknowledge that some intimate partners may face social stigma and a neutral stand of the law would be detrimental to the fundamental freedoms of the appellant. Therefore, a court while dealing with a petition for police protection by intimate partners on the grounds that they are a same sex, transgender, inter-faith or inter-caste couple must grant an ad-interim measure, such as immediately granting police protection to the petitioners, before establishing the threshold requirement of being at grave risk of violence and abuse…”.

The Supreme Court judgement may be read here:

The recent Allahabad HC rulings denying such protection to the interfaith couples fly in the face of the recent SC guidelines, but even before these guidelines were issued, the law had already established that privacy and safety of couples is of paramount importance and social mores should not come in the way of the fundamental rights of citizens. Through the judicial precedents set in Shakti Vahini vs Union of India and Shafin Jahan v Ashokan K.M the Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21, within the exclusive domain of an individual, and is a part of the core zone of privacy and individual liberty, which is inviolable. Given such precent, UP’s law on conversion itself remains precarious and the petitions challenging the validity of various conversion laws across several states have been pending in the SC.

On January 11, 2024, the bench of Justice Saral Srivastava again rejected the protection plea of the interfaith couple filed by one Farha on exactly the same ground as it mentioned in its January 10 judgement. The judgements look identical except for the fact that the petitioners have changed. In both these judgments, it put a caveat, stating that “it is open to the petitioners to prefer fresh writ petition in case they solemnise marriage after following the due procedure of law.”

The judgement maybe read here:

But it is precisely the compliance with the provisions of the UP’s Draconian conversion law that is putting interfaith couples on the edge. The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 requires the person who before or after the marriage intends to convert or converts his/her religion, to send a prior notice informing about her decision to convert to District Magistrate (DM) or Additional District Magistrate 60 days in advance, stating that the conversion is not forced, and is completely out of freewill. This is followed by an inquiry ordered by the DM and the publication of the particular details of the person who intends to convert on the notice board of the DM, and then if any objections are raised to the conversion it will have to be noted by the DM. This very process scares away the partners who intend to convert, as all the particular details including permanent address and present place of the stay will be publicly displayed on the DM’s wall, for anybody to harass the couples, further endangering their safety and security. Pertinently, the burden of proof is reversed and if any accusation of unfair conversion is alleged, the accused has to defend herself that the conversion was not unfair or influenced by extraneous factors.

The UP’s (anti)conversion law may be read here:

Even in other cases, where we are not sure about the religion of the couples, the court is dismissing the petitions for the security of couples merely on the ground that there is no valid proof of marriage available. In one such case, the same bench declined the request of Kajal Rani for the police protection on January 16, 2024, stating that “there is no proof of marriage of petitioners on record, therefore, the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted”. It has been observed that the bench is consistently asking such petitioners to file fresh petitions with a valid proof of marriage.

The judgement maybe read here:

There are also other grounds on the basis of which the HC is declining the petitions, including on the ground that the HC has no jurisdiction to provide such protection, but that does not seem to be a valid argument. On January 10, 2024, the bench declined to grant any security to the petitioner Khushboo Pandey, arguing that is it the father of the petitioner who is interfering with the married life of petitioners, and since he is staying in Satna, Madhya Pradesh, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the HC to grant protection to the couples who are staying in Banda, Uttar Pradesh! The fact that both the couples are living in Banda, where the UP police can provide protection to the couple is completely out of consideration for the bench.

The judgement maybe read here:

Still another reason for the bench to refuse the protection to couples is the registration of FIR by or against the couples (the judgement does not readily help identify who has registered the FIR), which again is difficult to comprehend. While dismissing the plea for police protection in a petition filed by Smt. Sariya, the court recorded in its reason that “F.I.R. has been lodged in the present case. The instructions containing the details of F.I.R. is taken on record. In view of the above, the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed…”

The judgement maybe read here:

Selective protection by the Court

It is not the case that the bench is not granting police protection to couples in general, the same bench had been generous in granting protection to numerous couples who had either completed their marriage registration process and were awaiting marriage registration certificate or those who already possessed such certificate. The problem arises when the couples have not completed their marriage registration process or do not possess marriage registration certificate, this is most likely the interfaith couples, who due to the draconian nature of the UP’s conversion law have been facing hurdles in completing their marriage registration process. Thus, interfaith couples are most hit by the judicial neglect, which makes them doubly vulnerable, firstly at the hands of their families, and secondly at the hands of the law. Again, to reiterate the point, even if the UP’s anti-conversion law is draconian, the courts still cannot decline the protection to such couples on the ground that certificate is missing or registration process is not completed. The binding precedents and guidelines are beyond doubt in this regard.

Further analysis of Allahabad HC judgements reveals that even while granting police protection to couples, the court does not directly order the police to provide the security to the couples, rather the judgements provides that “In case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the concerned police authority, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.” This is despite the fact and acknowledgement by the HC that police authorities failed to intervene when the couples had first approached them. After the judgement, the police are most likely to provide the protection to avoid contempt, but the process still puts entire burden on the inter-caste/interfaith couples to slog after the authorities.

The representative order maybe read here:

Moralising judgements and dangerous interlinkage between conversion and marriage

On January 16 this year, the bench of Justice Saral Srivastava dismissed a petition for police protection filed by Nagma Bano and also imposed cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner. The petitioner in this case Nagma Bano was forcefully remarried after the dead of her first husband, and had been living with her partner since running away from her house. She argued that she never accepted the Nikahnama in which she was forcefully married, and therefore her live-in relationship with her partner should be secured from the outside interference, including from her husband Azad with to whom she was forcefully married.

The court while rejecting her petition noted that “…she has not accepted the Nikahnama, but the fact remains that the marriage was solemnized. The marriage may be illegal, but that issue may be determined by a Court of law. Merely, because petitioner no.1 denies that she had not accepted the Nikahnama does not prove the marriage to be illegal when it is not disputed that the petitioner no.1 was present and participated in the Nikahnama. She only disputes the fact that she has not accepted the Nikahnama.”

The same judgement records that “In the present case, till date the marriage of the petitioner no.1 with respondent no.10 is not declared illegal or dissolved as per law, no civilised society can accept the living of married partner with a third person, and the Court under law in such condition is not obliged to come to rescue of such person who is living in a society not as per the norms, ethics and values of the society.”

The judgement maybe read here:

Another pressuring concern that has arisen due to UP’s anti-conversion law is the vicious interlinkage drawn between conversion and marriage. As a matter of fact, conversion and marriage are two separate issues, dealing with separate spheres of life and there are specific laws for the same. But in line with the theory of Love Jihad, propagated by the Hindutva forces, they believe that interfaith marriages are essentially meant to convert peoples, more specifically, gullible Hindu girls being converted to Islam through fraudulent means. Apart from the theory being anti-women and irrational, it promotes a masculinist tendency and takes away the voice of women vis-à-vis their right to marry a person of their choice. UP’s anti-conversion law has been doing something similar.

The judgement delivered on March 5 this year by Justice Renu Agarwal of the Allahabad High takes the power of the anti-conversion law even further. While rejecting the plea of Mariya Zameel requesting the court order to stop interference in the peaceful living of the couples, the judgement recorded that the “Explanation goes to show that conversion is not only required for the purpose of marriage, but it is also required in all relationship in the nature of marriage, therefore, Conversion Act applies to relationship in the nature of marriage or live-in- relationship. Petitioners have not yet applied for conversion as per provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the Act, hence, the relationship of petitioners cannot be protected in contraventions of the provisions of law.”

In this case, the bench did not consider the marriage registration certificate issued by Arya Samaj, and the submission made by the petitioner that they have applied online for registration of their marriage before the competent authority, which is pending at their end. In a similar situation, had the couple been from same religion they would have faced no such issues, as the compliance with the conversion law will not be required.

Essentially, as per this interpretation by the Allahabad High Court, interfaith couples will not get any protection of the law unless conversion is first formalised under the UP’s (anti)conversion Act of 2021. This is despite the pendency of constitutional challenges to this law in the Supreme Court by Citizens for Justice and Peace and others.

The judgement maybe read here:

Conclusion

The dangerous implication and impact of the Allahabad High Court’s judgments coupled with the stringent provisions of the conversion law has virtually made it impossible for interfaith couples to secure any protection for their lives and liberty, severely affecting the effectiveness of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The fact that the high court of Allahabad is a constitutional court also means that these orders can impact other states, especially in states also ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that have brought in similar laws. While the Allahabad High Court certainly needs a course correction in the face of the latest guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, this is expected to be a long drawn legal battle as we will see the constitutional validity of these conversion laws being challenged and debated in the apex court of the country. Until then, , the precarity of interfaith couples will only going to increase in the absence of any safeguards, either from society or the higher judiciary.

Representative table analysing some of the orders:

Table of other similar orders:

(The author is part of the CJP’s Legal Research Team)

Related:

CJP, other rights groups challenge Maharashtra Govt GR setting up a Committee to “monitor inter-faith marriages”

CJP’s amended petition allowed, CJP also challenges ‘love jihad’ laws of 5 more states

Here’s how CJP tracks hate crimes against those who dare to love

The post Why are Allahabad HC’s orders refusing police protection to inter-faith couples, wrong in law and principle? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The police received the victim’s statement on Thursday afternoon, wherein she detailed being gang-raped by the seven assailants who also subjected her to physical assault. The woman has also alleged that she was gang raped. Following this, section 376 D (gang rape) has been added to the existing FIR based on her allegations. Three arrests have been made so far, and one suspect is currently hospitalised due to an accident that occurred a day after the alleged incident. 

The victim initially implicated six individuals and then went on to later identifying additional accomplices. According to the police account, the brutal assault, which unfolded within the confines of a hotel room was recorded by the assailants and later went viral after circulating on various social media platforms. In the disturbing video, six men are depicted knocking on a room’s door. Upon the door opening, the assailants forcefully entered and started assaulting the couple. 

According to the police account, an auto-rickshaw driver noticed the arrival of the couple at the hotel. Witnessing a woman in a burqa accompanied by a man from a different community, the driver promptly had reportedly alerted a local gang sharing the same minority background. The men arrived on three motorcycles and then transported the couple to an isolated location approximately a kilometre away from the hotel. Once there, they subjected the couple to further physical assault, including verbal abuse, rape and strikes with sticks. Following the ordeal, the assailants handed the woman Rs. 500 and instructed her to return to her native place. She eventually sought refuge in Sirsi, where her husband resides, as told by a senior police officer. The accused people are unaffiliated with any organisation, they also don’t have a criminal background, although thorough verification is underway, according to the report. 

In India, a mere 2% of the population cross the boundaries of faith in marriage, according to a 2021 report by the Pew Research Centre. The study reveals data from interfaith marriages across several religious groups shows that interfaith marriage continues to be an exception. The data reveals 99% of Hindus, 98% of Muslims, 97% of Sikhs and Buddhists, and 95% of Christians in India have marriages within their respective communities. Honour killings of women, and men, who engage in interfaith or inter-caste marriages are prevalent. The governments of Delhi, Punjab and Haryana have been compelled to recognise this horrific trend and have set up safe houses in their states where these couples can come and stay when their lives are threatened. Recently, Maharashtra government too had set up safe houses to provide security and shelter to interfaith and inter-caste couples. These changes have been affected by long-standing advocacy by NGOs and activists. Vice Media’s story on one such organisation, Dhanak which has been working for nearly two decades helping provide a dignified future for interfaith couples who have chosen paths distinct from their families. The organisation has provided assistance to approximately 5,000 couples. However, even NGOs and activists who seek to help these couples are not spared as the article details how the organisation has to contend with threats and furious family members. 

Related

Dalit scientist at top science institute threatens fast unto death after harassment

Within hours of police mediating her return home, young woman from Tamil Nadu ‘killed by family for marrying Dalit man’

Bilkis Bano speaks: First person account, Godhra Relief Camp, March 2002

Lavanya Ballal Jain, Congress spokesperson, subjected to online sexual harassment; incident motivated by BJP spokesperson

The post Interfaith couple assaulted in Karnataka, woman gang raped appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy:worrydot.com

A brutal murder of a young man who had married a woman from a different faith was reported from Hyderabad on Wednesday. The victim, 25-year-old B Nagaraju had married 23-year-old Ashrin Sulthana a.k.a. Pallavi on January 22 this year, after having known each other for years, stated news reports.

Nagaraju was stabbed to death at the Saroornagar Tahsildar office in Hyderabad, reportedly by a bike-borne assailant. The murder is being reported as a case of so called ‘honour killing’, that is a murder carried out by the couple’s families or on the behest of the families who claim their so called ‘honour’ has been defiled by the marriage.

According to news reports, the main accused has been arrested, and some other suspects detained; members of the girl’s family, are reportedly among them. CNN-News18 reported that according to ACP P Sreedhar Reddy, “The brother and brother-in-law of the girl had been against the union,” and Nagaraju was stabbed to death by an “unknown person riding a bike at the Saroornagar Tahsildar office at 9 pm on Wednesday night.” Even though the attacker escaped, “many onlookers took pictures of the dead body and videotaped the incident on their phones.”

Nagaraju’s relatives also staged a demonstration, accusing his wife’s family of being behind the murder, and now “tensions in the region have risen” stated news reports. According to reports, the young couple were also attacked with an iron rod, and one of the assailants then “stabbed Nagaraju several times, killing him on the spot.” 

The crime was also recorded on CCTV cameras installed nearby. The woman was rushed to a hospital by passersby. According to police, her family had always opposed this relationship and had barred the woman from seeing him. However, the couple decided to get married at an Arya Samaj temple on January 31. According to Indian Express, they moved to Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh, as the threats from the woman’s family continued. Police told the media that the couple had come to Hyderabad just a week ago and had rented a house. 

Related

Now, Hate Offender Nischalananda Saraswati demands “Hindu Rashtra”
Cow vigilantes brutally murder two Adivasi men in Madhya Pradesh
VHP backs out on MNS’ Hanuman Chalisa event
Hate Speech: Is administering an ‘oath’ to make India a ‘Hindu-rashtra’ legal?
Will UP manage to stop communal events planned by hate offenders?
Saharanpur: Who were the ‘media men’ whose questions created tension during Friday prayers?
Right-wing attempts at targeting BHU iftar deflated!

The post Hyderabad: Interfaith couple attacked, man stabbed to death! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On April 15, 2022, members of the right-wing group, ‘Dharam Jagran Samanvay Sangh’, allegedly set three houses on fire belonging to the family of the man who eloped with a girl from another community in Agra. The man has been identified as one Sajid, a gym owner in Agra’s Runakta locality as per NDTV.

While setting the houses ablaze, the mob reportedly demanded the arrest of the man accusing him of kidnapping the woman. On the other hand, the woman reportedly recorded four videos that went viral on social media. In one such video, the woman clearly confirmed that she is an adult and had gone willingly with the man. Adding the fact that they are now married she further stated, “Please don’t trouble our family members because of us. I will come and record my statement before court.” In another video she reportedly claims that her parents are insisting her to make false accusations against the man.

According to TOI, a “panchayat” was held on Friday morning and soon after the three houses were set on fire. Senior Superintendent of Police Sudhir Kumar Singh told mediapersons that an FIR has been registered against the 21 identified members of the group including Runakta village Pradhan and a zila panchayat member and over 100 unidentified persons under IPC sections 147 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly), 436 (mischief by fire with intent to destroy house), 307 (attempt to murder) and section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, as reported by TOI. The SSP further stated that nine people had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

The family members of the woman have also filed a missing police complaint urging them to conduct a search for the couple.

Related:

SC issues notice in CJP’s Love Jihad Petition

Intimacies of marriage private, can’t be affected by matters of faith: SC

Survey indicates need for Love Jihad law: UP Governor

Gujarat HC grants protection to inter-caste couple

The post Mob sets three houses ablaze in Agra over interfaith relationship appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Gujarat High Court has ordered police protection for an inter-faith couple after a habeas corpus petition was filed by the man stating that the corpus (woman) was being illegally confined by her parents. The Division bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and Sangeeta Vishen even asked the PSI of Karanj Police station to subit a report on why the corpus was called to the police station after sunset and let go in the middle of the night, at 3 am.

The corpus who was at Lok Rakshak Dal (LRD) training centre, Junagadh was not allowed to use her cell phone. She also submitted before the court that she was called at the Karanj Police Station at 08:00 p.m. with the petitioner and was allowed to leave at about 03:00 a.m.

She told the court that was keen to marry the petitioner and due to resistance from her family and community, she was unable to do so. She requested the court to permit her to travel to Ahmedabad from her training centre in Junagadh since it was the last date of registering their marriage under Special Marriage Act, after having given notice as required under the Act.

As per section 5 of the Act, the parties to the marriage are required to issue notice to the marriage officer of such intended marriage, at least 30 days in advance and this notice expires within 3 months, if marriage is not solemnized within that time and under section 14 of the Act, a new notice is required to be issued.

The court directed that:

·A lady PSI shall accompany the corpus to Ahmedabad along with an employee of the District Legal Services Authority

·Her leave be sanctioned for this purpose by the training centre. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Junagadh to ensure execution of said arrangements

·The report of the sub-Registrar of registration of marriage and affidavit of Mr. Tadvi, PSI, Karanj Police Station, shall be tendered before this Court, EXPLAINING, as to why the corpus was called at the police station after sunset for recording her statement, on the next date.

·Public prosecutor Jhaveri to ascertain the reason of precluding the corpus to have any communication through cell phone, while undergoing training at the Training Centre, while she is permitted to do so in post-training hours

·Public prosecutor to ensure that the DCP, Zone-2, shall necessary protection to the couple, during the entire process of registration of marriage and thereafter.

The same division bench had, last month, offered relief to an interfaith couple who were detained by the police after having solemnised their marriage against the wishes of the woman’s family. The bench, while observing that undue fervour was shown by the police as it was a case of inter-faith marriage, had also directed the Range IG of the jurisdiction concerned “to inquire into the matter, more particularly, considering the conduct of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (police inspectors of Palanpur East and West police stations), in whose custody, the couple has been detained for all these days, and report to the DIG”. The couple was also provided police protection for 4 weeks which could be extended if deemed necessary.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

Gujarat HC slams police for detaining interfaith couple

An adult woman free to move “as per her own wish”: Bombay High Court

Allahabad HC reunites interfaith couple, provides police protection

The post Guj HC orders police protection to inter-faith couple wishing to solemnize marriage appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Division Bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and Sangeeta K. Vishen of the Gujarat High Court offered relief to an interfaith couple who solemnised their marriage against the wishes of the woman’s father and were subsequently detained by the Police.

The court noted that the facts of the case were “quite glaring and also shocking” and quashed the remand order passed by the Magistrate. The court also directed the immediate release of the woman on her executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the Court and also gave her the liberty to take all legal recourse, including the preferring of a quashing of petition. The Division Bench issued a similar direction for her husband.

The court further directed the Range IG of the jurisdiction concerned “to inquire into the matter, more particularly, considering the conduct of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (police inspectors of Palanpur East and West police stations), in whose custody, the couple has been detained for all these days, and report to the DIG”.

While giving directions to the Range Inspector General, the court urged the IG to bear in mind that this is a case, where, the “undue fervour is shown”, on account of this being an inter-religion marriage and to also acknowledge the various judgments of Lata Singh and Shakti Vahini where the Supreme Court has upheld the right of inter caste/ religion couples against honour killing.

The Bench also recorded the public prosecutor’s assurance that the couple, who now want to reside in Surat, shall be granted police protection “initially for a period of four weeks” by the Surat city police commissioner, whereafter the police commissioner shall decide whether the same requires to be continued or not.

As reported by the Indian Express, the Gujarat Police went by flight to Kerala to take the couple into their custody and then travelled back by road to Palanpur where the husband-wife were detained at two separate police stations. Both were named as accused in the FIR. The woman was also allegedly pressured to not continue with the relationship but she remained adamant.

Lawyer NK Majumdar who appeared for the petitioner (the accused husband’s brother) contended that how could the accused man be taken into custody before the registration of the FIR. “As per the prosecution’s case, they were taken into custody in Kerala on January 12 and brought to Palanpur and arrested on January 15. But as per the petitioner, they were brought to Palanpur on January 12 and continued to be in illegal detention until January 15, when the FIR came to be registered,” reported the Indian Express.

The High Court, then, ordered for the two to be produced before it and spoke to them confidentiality, first separately and then together. Majumdar had also stated that on January 4, the woman had written to the police authorities that she was married and was leaving home of her own volition.  

The orders may be read here: 

Related:

An adult woman free to move “as per her own wish”: Bombay High Court

Allahabad HC reunites interfaith couple, provides police protection

Cannot intervene if adult marries as per choice and converts: Cal HC

Notice publication of marriage under Special Marriage Act violates privacy: Allahabad HC

The post Gujarat HC slams police for detaining interfaith couple appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While hearing a writ petition filed by a married couple who alleged that they were being harassed by the Uttar Pradesh Police after the Love Jihad law came into force, the High Court offered protection to them.

A Division Bench of Justices Ritu Raj Awasthi and Saroj Yadav reportedly said, “Considering the entire aspect of the matter, it is hereby provided that till the next date of listing, the petitioners shall not be harassed by the police on the basis of the impugned F.I.R.”

The petitioners had submitted that they were compelled to approach the High court due to harassment by the police after the invocation of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020.

They further submitted that they have been married for three years and are living peacefully and enjoying their matrimonial life. They also apprised the court that they now have a child, aged about a year and a half.

The court granted the state a week’s time to seek instructions and posted the matter for hearing thereafter.

Yesterday, this court also took note of an interfaith couple’s plight absorbed between the Special Marriage Act and the new Uttar Pradesh anti-conversion law and held that the notice period provided under the former act violates the right to privacy and is not mandatory.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Notice publication of marriage under Special Marriage Act violates privacy: Allahabad HC

Allahabad HC reunites interfaith couple, provides police protection

Another interfaith couple receives protection by the Allahabad HC

The post Allahabad HC directs UP Police to not harass interfaith couple appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Allahabad High Court passed an order upholding an adult’s right to choose to live with her husband and reunited an interfaith couple after a lower court’s order led to their separation. The court observed after interacting with the woman (Shikha) that she “expressed that she wants to live with her husband (Salman @Karan) she is free to move as per her own choice without any restriction or hindrance being created by third party.”

A two-judge bench comprising Justices Pankaj Naqvi and Vivek Agarwal was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the husband, Salman as his wife was sent to her parents’ home by the Child Welfare Committee, against her wishes. The Magistrate court had held the woman to be a minor and hence the court handed her over to the custody of CWC which in turn handed her over to her parents. The court held that this was done without any application of mind and against her wish.

The court was also presented with a certificate from her school headmaster, whereby, as per her date of birth, she has already attained majority. The court held that the acts of Magistrate, Etah and the CWC reflects lack of appreciation of legal provisions. the court observed that the corpus (woman) has attained the age of majority and she has a choice to live her life on her own terms.

The court allowed the petition and directed the investigating officer to ensure that appropriate protection is granted to the corpus and her husband till they return to their residence while also directing SSP, Prayagraj to provide necessary police security for safe passage of the couple.

Even Karnataka High Court held in its judgment upheld the right of an adult to marry the person of his/her choice irrespective of caste or religion while observing “It is well settled that a right of any major individual to marry the person of his/her choice is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India and the said liberty relating to the personal relationships of two individuals cannot be encroached by anybody irrespective of caste or religion.”

Calcutta High Court (in Palash Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal) held that it cannot intervene if an adult marries as per her choice and decides to convert and not return to her paternal house.

Ironically, the UP Police has made 35 arrests under the one-month old Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance that defines unlawful conversions and deems conversion done solely for marriage as illegal and punishable.

The Allahabad High Court order may be read here.

Related:

UP’s Love Jihad law completes one month, 35 incarcerated

Allahabad HC protects man booked under UP ‘love jihad’ law

Cannot intervene if adult marries as per choice and converts: Cal HC

The post Allahabad HC reunites interfaith couple, provides police protection appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“I am not a minor… Don’t separate me from Sonu. I love him very much… he is my life..leave me… leave me…,” screams a distressed young woman as she is dragged away by policewomen into a waiting e-rickshaw. Later on in the clip a young man can be seen screaming “we were thrashed a lot in court… they stopped my love… they are taking my love away… her name is Anjali, my name is Sonu Malik”…  The videos have aired on the social media handle of News24 TV channel and are being shared widely.

अलीगढ़: हिंदू युवती को लेकर शादी करने कोर्ट पहुंचा था मुस्लिम युवक, कोर्ट परिसर में जमकर हुआ हंगामा…#LoveJihaad #लवजिहाद #UttarPradesh pic.twitter.com/2N54Id1N4s

— News24 (@news24tvchannel) December 5, 2020

Please listen complete statement of girl and you can judge that girl was knowing that boy is Muslim but in his statement he olso saying he was not knowing that boy is Muslim, girl stayed in boys sister home for few days then came to court and in court this is how cried for boy pic.twitter.com/SSITn3ejbT

— Facts check (@FactsJaq577) December 5, 2020

According to a report in The Times Of India, Sonu Malik the 21-year-old man, who  is seen being forcibly taken away by policemen, works in Ambala in Haryana is reportedly Muslim. The girl is reportedly Hindu and has said in a second video that she had come from Chandigarh for a registered  marriage with Sonu Malik, who she had met on social media and become friends with. 

However the couple had to ‘hear a lot of things’ in the court, said the woman in the second clip where she is speaking calmly, and her face is covered, but she is seen wearing the same sweater as she was in the first clip when she was being dragged away. She says she did not know Sonu was a Muslim till later. The couple came together on a motorbike to the court in Aligarh to wed, she said. When the ruckus, that was captured on camera happened, some people in the background can also be heard saying the couple should be thrashed ‘properly’ as they are dragged away by two sets of police personnel.

According to the TOI report, the couple was was “allegedly abused and beaten inside the court premises”, and then taken to the Civil Line police station Aligarh but no FIR had been registered till late on Thursday. Circle officer (CO) Anil Samaniya was quoted saying: “The matter is under investigation.” 

Related

Is anti-Love Jihad Law constitutional?
It’s a sweet love story, but UP govt’ sees jihad phantom
UP Governor gives assent to anti-Love Jihad ordinance
UP: ‘Love Jihad’ law catches pace, 2 cases registered in Bareilly
Right to choose a partner is intrinsic to Right to life & personal liberty: Allahabad HC

The post Interfaith couple allegedly beaten up in Aligarh court! appeared first on SabrangIndia.