Home Stories “We Don’t See Priyanka, Salamat As Hindu-Muslim”: Big Court Verdict In UP

“We Don’t See Priyanka, Salamat As Hindu-Muslim”: Big Court Verdict In UP


A person from UP had challenged a police case towards him filed by his spouse’s dad and mom.

Lucknow:

A case filed towards a Muslim man by the dad and mom of his spouse, who transformed to Islam final yr to marry him, has been cancelled by the Allahabad High Court. “Interference in a personal relationship would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals,” the court docket noticed in a verdict that’s important in the course of a fiery debate over “love jihad”.

“We do not see Priyanka Kharwar and Salamat Ansari as Hindu and Muslim, rather as two grown-up individuals who – out of their own free will and choice – are living together peacefully and happily over a year. The Courts and the Constitutional Courts in particular are enjoined to uphold the life and liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” mentioned a two-judge bench.

Salamat Ansari, a resident of east UP’s Kushinagar, and Priyanka Kharwar married towards her dad and mom’ needs in August final yr. Priyanka transformed to Islam and altered her title to “Alia” simply earlier than their marriage ceremony.

The identical month, Priyanka’s dad and mom filed an FIR or First Information Report towards Salamat, accusing him of crimes like “kidnapping” and “abduction to compel a marriage”. They included the stringent POCSO Act (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act), claiming that their daughter was a minor when she married.

On November 11, the Allahabad High Court dominated on Salamat’s petition requesting that the FIR be cancelled.

“The right to live with a person of his/her choice irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty,” the High Court mentioned within the 14-page order, rejecting arguments by the UP authorities in addition to the girl’s dad and mom.

The judgement comes at a time BJP-ruled states like UP, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana have talked about bringing legal guidelines to cease “Love jihad”, a pejorative utilized by right-wing teams to focus on relationships between Muslim males and Hindu girls, which, they are saying, is a ruse to forcibly convert the ladies.

Judges Vivek Agarwal and Pankaj Naqvi additionally made sturdy observations on the 2 earlier orders by totally different judges in the identical court docket in related instances.

Newsbeep

One of them was a writ petition in 2014 filed by 5 {couples}, in search of safety after interfaith marriages; the petition was dismissed. In one other case, a single-judge bench in September refused to intervene in a petition by a pair as they sought safety three months after their marriage. The choose cited a Supreme Court order to say – “Religious conversion – just for the purpose of marriage – is not acceptable”.

“None of these judgments dealt with the issue of life and liberty of two mature individuals in choosing a partner or their right to freedom of choice as to with whom they would like to live. We hold the judgments in Noor Jahan (2014) and Priyanshi (September 2020) as not laying good law,” the High Court judges mentioned.

Challenging the FIR, Salamat and Priyanka had alleged that it was “prompted by malice and mischief only with a view to bring an end to marital ties, and that no offences are made out.”

In response, the attorneys for the UP authorities and the girl’s dad and mom argued that non secular conversion to marry is banned and that “the marriage has no sanctity in law, so this court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of such a couple.”

After establishing that the girl was an grownup on the time of marriage, the two-judge bench made a number of observations to uphold “life and liberty”.

Invoking the structure, the judges noticed: “We fail to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even state can have objection to relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together. Decision of an individual who is of the age of majority, to live with an individual of his/her choice is strictly a right of an individual and when this right is infringed it would constitute breach of his/her fundamental right to life and personal liberty as it includes right to freedom of choice, to choose a partner and right to live with dignity as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The court docket additionally clarified it was not commenting on the “the validity of alleged marriage/ conversion,” however was cancelling the case as no offences have been proved and “two grown up individuals are before us, living together for over a year of their own free will and choice.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here