 Hi, welcome. We are lawyers from Lawyers Collective and today we are here to discuss the proceedings that took place in the Supreme Court on the Hadiya case on 27th November 2017. In the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court had asked Hadiya to come to the Supreme Court on 27th November and they wanted to speak to her. But what happened in the courtroom was very different than them just talking to her because they initially took two hours to decide if they even wanted to speak to Hadiya. To give a little context of what this case is about, Hadiya is a 25-year-old woman who was remanded in the custody of her parents by Kerala Haikot in 2016 and she has been staying with her parents under their custody, forcefully under their custody for the last 11 months. The Kerala Haikot asked to do so because she had married a Muslim guy called Shafeen Jahan and she had converted to Islam. But the Kerala Haikot felt that this was done. Hadiya's father had filed a petition in the Kerala Haikot alleging that she was going to be taken out of the country by her husband and that she had not converted to Islam by her own free will. And the Haikot agreed to that and they said that the decision of autonomy of a major is also not fully binding on the parents. The parents can take decisions for them on their behalf. So the husband of Hadiya Shafeen Jahan had come to the Supreme Court saying that this is not correct and he needs and the marriage should not have been annulled by the Kerala Haikot. The context aside what happened in the Supreme Court was very disturbing where there were lawyers on both the sides, lawyers representing Shafeen Jahan, Hadiya's husband and lawyers representing the National Investigative Agency and both sides alleging different things and on different pages where the lawyers from the National Investigation Agency and Hadiya's father were saying that they have uncovered a very well oiled machinery that is operating in Kerala and they are converting a lot of women forcefully and how Hadiya's husband allegedly had connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations and they had full records of that. And they wanted those records to be looked into by the judges, by the three judge bench before they actually spoke to Hadiya whereas the lawyers who were representing Hadiya's husband seeking Hadiya's freedom were Mr. Sibyl and Ms. Jessing. What they were alleging were that no, primarily this is an issue about Hadiya's personal autonomy and personal freedom and the connections of Shafeen Jahan or the investigations that are being taken place should be de-linked. Both these issues should not be connected as one and be explored as one. They should first look into what happens to the autonomy of a 25-year-old adult woman and how she has been forcefully put in the custody of her parents. It took the judges over two hours to decide if Hadiya, if they should even speak to Hadiya when they had asked Hadiya in a previous order to come to the court and they wanted to speak to her. The lawyers of the National Investigative Agency and Hadiya's father Mr. Shyam Divan and the ASG Mr. Manindar Singh, they were saying Hadiya has been indoctrinated, she has been programmed, she has been brainwashed and that is why she has been coerced to convert to Islam and such cases have also been found before. The debate just kept on getting prolonged and prolonged to talk about that is the primary issue that Hadiya's personal freedom as an adult should that be respected by the Supreme Court of India or her personal choices for that matter or should they first decide conclusively if Shafeen Jahan has terrorist links or if he is a threat or and in that regard consequently Hadiya is a threat to national security. So these two issues were very interlinked when they should have been not. I think they were just confused as one and there was much more to the issue than they were making it out to be. Don't you think so? You know I absolutely agree with you because I think that in my opinion I don't think the Supreme Court should have entertained the petition after a certain point of time because I think in the first order prior to the first hearing the Supreme Court even the bench concluded that the person has the freedom of religion and choice and that is I think and as Mr. Jaisingh also points out in the subsequent hearing that article 21 is non-negotiable and I don't think that words being used like programming, reprogramming, indoctrination these words like programming is not defined anywhere not in the constitution not in any other statute. So why are they why are they exploring into an issue which is obviously being forced upon a very simple open and shut case which is that a woman or a major woman has decided to choose willingly even if it's a forced conversion and let's just assume that she was forced into this conversion and to this marriage. So then what is this favorable order that they're looking for? Is the NIA and Haria's father's lawyers what are they seeking? Are they seeking that okay is the is the prime focus of this case to identify that there is a racket going on is that but that's not in the press. So what is it that a why is it that a 25 year old's decisional autonomy is being discussed at the doorsteps of the Supreme Court of India and they're entertaining this. It's very interesting to see how the Supreme Court itself has seen Haria from discussing who should be given a custody of a 25 year old is very surprising and going back to the earlier orders of the Supreme Court I think it's the order of the Supreme Court in August 2017 the Supreme Court actually refers to her as a child in question whereas if you see how in the last hearing Justice Chandra Chaud took a very different and a progressive view and he said that women are not chattel and this was in the context when when Haria repeatedly asked the court that her husband should be appointed as her should be appointed as her guardian and this the view of Justice Chandra Chaud actually endorses the fact that women have agency they have they can't take their own decisions and definitely it's not about a women versus a man's issue it's about taking individual choices and respecting that and she is a 25 year old she's not a minor she's not a lunatic and therefore one needs to question why should her custody be given to anyone else. Why did Kerala Haikon actually decide that they have no jurisdiction? Exactly. Also it is it is complicated at various levels first is would the reaction from everybody be it the court be it the media the public would the reaction be same if this woman had decided to convert into say some other religion maybe she just rider to marry a man who followed Buddhism or some some other religion other than Islam would the reactions be the same secondly would it be the same if if a man decides to change religion and fall in love with the woman and change religion for that so it is it is it has a common angle to it it has a it has a gender angle to it and and leaving all this aside if the if the court is saying that I think in the last hearing the court the court was taking a very not a very clear stand on what they what they think Hadya to be whether whether they in their head they are thinking that she should be the Shaheen Jan and Hadya should be seen as a man and a woman because the order says once you're telling this 25-year-old woman that okay in the Kerala High Court order like how can you decide against the choice of your family which is telling her that your marriage at so many levels is wrong then and when she approaches the court Supreme Court and she asked that you know I want to pursue my education and she says that and the court decides that okay the state is going to pay for your education so at one point you are looking into this woman because you think that her husband has some links with the terrorist organizations her husband and that is why this woman has been put into question because of her husband at the same time when she's asking that my husband is going to pay for my education you're telling no the state is going to pay for your education do you even look them as a married couple you don't look immense courage when she actually when the court asked when the when justice she justice actually asked Hadya that okay when the order when he was dictating the order and he said that the state of Kerala will pay for her and she actually questioned that what is the need for the Kerala state to pay for her and the issue of gender justice was actually brought up in the court by Ms. Jessing and it was it was very shocking for me at that point that the entire courtroom actually burst out laughing so it was just that she got up and said that that you are not letting this woman speak for two hours and it is about the agency of a woman and if it was a man you would have actually let him speak by now and the courtroom burst out laughing and then the chief justice also got very angry and he said he said no this is very unfair on your part Ms. Jessing this is not about gender justice and then Justice Chandrachud said that you know Ms. Jessing we would treat man and woman at par it is not about man and woman personal liberty of both would be treated at par but the shocking point for me was that actually this is a courtroom full of lawyers and all of them literally quite literally laughed at her for thinking it is a gender justice issue in the first place how is it not if it is about a woman who married by her choice she's been standing there for two hours trying to just make her voice heard and what I could think was that here I am this woman is my age and I have to only fight with my parents and this woman has to fight with the entire Supreme Court of India and even then they actually just they actually tell her what she can do next yes no more she's no more in the custody of her parents but she's been told you can finish you have the permission to finish your house but there is no freedom to go and visit her friends they she asked she said can I go visit a friend before that the also problematic part was that what I mean I think that what I heard someone else saying and I kind of agree with them also how it was assumed at a woman who has agreed to marry someone by her choice or convert to religion also the Kerala High Court pointed that at this age people are not really interested in conversion can like converting to religion a different religion or in all of these philosophies and they like how easy is it for a bench or for lawyers to assume that she is indoctrinated how easy is it for them to assume that oh because she did it by her own choice or she married someone of her own choice she must have been indoctrinated how can she just have that much of a mindfulness to do it or by her own don't you think that there's a bigger issue here it's not just about how we can go on and but it's just a distraction from the real issue her decision of autonomy is being discussed but actually it's about a bigger picture how there is a state control and she as I think and I just pointed out that Kerala High Court only has jurisdiction over lunatics and minors then and she's neither then why are we taking decisions about her autonomy the issue is much deeper than it is as answer for it it's about of that particular religion it has communal it has it has caste-based politics and considering the current political environment it's all mixed into one bag as to what are they what is the agenda here what is the question why article 21 is now out in the open being discussed again and again for a girl which which appears on the face of it appears to be a very simple case so the National Investigation Agency was it was there any need for them to be involved in this in this case in the National Investigation Agency coming into picture because you think that her husband has links then might as well just go proven to the husband also now I think Supreme Court has the opportunity to settle it down once in down that a woman has the right to decide who to marry and she can pursue her education and she can if she wants if she wants and the state will pay for it if you take it there have been so many cases of honor killing and the Supreme Court has not shied away from you know giving their opinions as to how it is bad but you don't understand honor killings happen because a person decides to marry like basically it that is the root cause I decide to marry somebody of my choice that is the that is the way the honor is supposedly gone now you have the chance to say directly opposite to it that you know you can you can marry any one of your choice and your honor is going nowhere your rights are in has been used as a poster girl for love jihad and it is not an issue of love jihad love jihad is not been defined I think in a Kerala High Court in another order has actually said that please don't use words like love jihad and they've also said that please be careful don't give communal color to things which are just like about simple exercising of your own because it is it is political on the face of it but politics is not discussed in the Supreme Court yes I think we all agree that overall this was the thing in the case of hadya it's it's very surprising and shocking to all the women in the country that this is a gender issue we have to identify it as one and treat it as one thank you for tuning in we're all lawyers at lawyers collective I'm Nehmet Anchil Ajita and Shivangi and we hope to have such discussions more often thank you