Parties and roles: Shafin Jahan is the appellant/applicant who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Asokan K.M. & Ors. is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is an appellate, special or Supreme Court proceeding. Hadiya, an adult, converted to Islam and chose to marry Shafin Jahan. Her father alleged coercion and radicalization. In habeas corpus proceedings, the Kerala High Court annulled the marriage and placed her in parental custody. The Supreme Court confronted whether a constitutional court may substitute parental or judicial preferences for an adult woman's choice of faith and spouse, even amid security allegations. Procedural and real-world context: 2016: Adult woman Akhila/Hadiya converted to Islam and married Shafin Jahan. | May 2017: Kerala High Court annulled marriage in habeas corpus proceedings. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve could the High Court annul an adult's marriage in habeas corpus jurisdiction? How do autonomy and choice interact with investigation of alleged coercion or crime? The outcome mattered immediately because the High Court had no jurisdiction to annul the marriage. Choice of partner is integral to Articles 19 and 21, dignity and individual autonomy; society, parents and courts cannot dictate an adult's partner. Procedural setting: 2016: Adult woman Akhila/Hadiya converted to Islam and married Shafin Jahan. | May 2017: Kerala High Court annulled marriage in habeas corpus proceedings. | Nov 2017: Supreme Court personally heard Hadiya and restored her liberty. | 08 Mar 2018: Marriage restored; NIA could continue lawful investigation without examining marital choice. The central problem before the Court was could the High Court annul an adult's marriage in habeas corpus jurisdiction? How do autonomy and choice interact with investigation of alleged coercion or crime? The controversy was considered in the framework of Constitutional habeas corpus jurisdiction; Special Marriage/personal law context; criminal investigation laws, together with Constitution arts.19, 21, 32 and 226. The wider importance of the case lies in autonomy; choice of partner; dignity; habeas corpus limits; separation of individual choice from criminal investigation.

Appellant/Hadiya: an adult's marriage, faith and residence are matters of autonomy; habeas corpus cannot invalidate marriage. | Father/State: circumstances suggested indoctrination or organized conversion and warranted protective investigation. Competing positions in context: Shafin Jahan's position: as the appellant/applicant, Shafin Jahan sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Autonomy; choice of partner; dignity; habeas corpus limits; separation of individual choice from criminal investigation. Asokan K.M. & Ors.'s position: as respondent, Asokan K.M. & Ors. resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Constitutional habeas corpus jurisdiction; Special Marriage/personal law context; criminal investigation laws and Constitution arts.19, 21, 32 and 226, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

The High Court had no jurisdiction to annul the marriage. Choice of partner is integral to Articles 19 and 21, dignity and individual autonomy; society, parents and courts cannot dictate an adult's partner. Any NIA investigation into distinct criminality could continue, but Hadiya's marital decision could not be the subject of approval or invalidation. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Autonomy; choice of partner; dignity; habeas corpus limits; separation of individual choice from criminal investigation and binds the parties to the operative directions made in Criminal Appeal No. 366/2018 arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 5777/2017. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Constitutional habeas corpus jurisdiction; Special Marriage/personal law context; criminal investigation laws. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Constitutional habeas corpus jurisdiction; Special Marriage/personal law context; criminal investigation laws

Constitution arts.19, 21, 32 and 226

Autonomy; choice of partner; dignity; habeas corpus limits; separation of individual choice from criminal investigation