Hadiya marriage: Kerala govt rubbishes NIA’s shocking claims

coastaldigest.com news network
October 7, 2017

Kasaragod, Oct 7: The Kerala state government has  Kerala rejected the claims made by the Centre's National Investigation Agency (NIA) in the Supreme Court that the Hadiya case, involving conversion of a Hindu woman to Islam and her marriage to a Muslim man, is part of a “pattern” of religious conversions and radicalisation happening in the southern State.

In fact, Pinarayi Vijayan-led CPI (M) government said the Kerala Police was doing an “efficient” job investigating the Hadiya case until the Supreme Court intervened and, believing the NIA’s claims, transferred the investigation to the central agency.

In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the Kerala government said the investigation conducted by the State Police had not revealed any offences which warranted an NIA probe.

"The investigation conducted so far by the Kerala Police has not revealed any incident relating to the commission of any scheduled offences to make a report to the Central Government under Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008," the affidavit filed by Subrata Biswas, the State's Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, said under oath to the Supreme Court.

The State questioned the sudden transfer of the case to the NIA, saying the State Police Chief had already entrusted the investigation to the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes) and directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team.

A comprehensive probe was already on into various aspects, including the conversion of the woman to Islam, the religious institutions and persons involved, the persons she was in contact, the family background and criminal antecedents of the man she married to, Shafin Jahan, the financial arrangements and other details of their alleged marriage, and finally, if the case involved any attempts of trafficking Hadiya to outside the country.

"The Kerala Police had conducted a thorough investigation in an efficient manner. The Kerala Police is competent to conduct the investigation in such crimes and would have reported to the Central government if any scheduled offences were found to have been committed as per the provisions under the NIA Act," the affidavit said.

On August 16, when the case was transferred to the NIA, then Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar made a blunt remark to the Kerala government counsel that "we think you (Kerala Police) may take sides. So we asked the NIA for their inputs’’.

The court had wanted the NIA to give inputs after going through the files of the Hadiya case. Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh, for NIA, had then returned to submit to the court that the Hadiya case was "not an isolated case and we have come across another case with a similar pattern and involving the same people who are acting as instigators".

However, the Supreme Court Bench on October 3, this time led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, had done a virtual U-turn by questioning the August 16 order for NIA probe.

The Bench led by Chief Justice Misra also prima facie found that the Kerala High Court had no authority to annul the inter-religious marriage between Jahan and Hadiya.

“The order for NIA investigation strikes at the very foundation of multi-religious society... Two senior BJP functionaries have married members of minority communities,” senior advocate Dushyant Dave and advocate Haris Beeran, for Jahan, had argued.

The apex court had further questioned the legality of girl's father keeping her in his custody for the past several months.

“We will hear logical and legal arguments on two issues — can the HC nullify a marriage exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and was an NIA probe necessary,” Chief Justice Misra had observed, posting the case for hearing on October 9

Comments

Abdullah
 - 
Sunday, 8 Oct 2017

Narendra Investigation Agency(NIA).

 

They plan Allah plan, and Allah plans. Surely Allah is the Best of Planners. -Qur'an 8:30

Ibrahim
 - 
Saturday, 7 Oct 2017

The same strategy they used in Dr. Zakir Naik's matter. NIA targeting ZN

Sooraj
 - 
Saturday, 7 Oct 2017

True.. NIA taking biased decisions. Many cheddi people visited Hadiya's house but even friends cant go to her house because of security restrictions

Kumar
 - 
Saturday, 7 Oct 2017

NIA working as Modi's right hand.. 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 17,2024

ullalpool.jpg

Mangaluru: A tragic incident unfolded on Sunday, November 17, at Vazco Resort (VAZCO), situated at Battappadi Cross Road in Someshwara on the outskirts of the city, when three young women drowned in the resort’s swimming pool. 

Disturbingly, an iPhone recording and CCTV footage captured their final moments, providing insights into the heartbreaking accident.

According to City Police Commissioner Anupam Agrawal, the tragedy occurred at approximately 10:05 AM. The victims were identified as:

Keerthana N (21) from Devaraj Mohalla, Hebbal Second Stage, Vijayanagar Post.
Nishitha M.D (21) from 4th Cross, Kuribarahalli, Mysuru.
Parvathi S (20) from Ramanuja Road, K.R. Mohalla, Mysuru.

Sequence of Events

The three women had checked into Room No. 2 of the resort on the morning of November 16 and stayed overnight. On Sunday morning, around 10 AM, they entered the swimming pool to play. Reports suggest that they placed their clothes poolside and set an iPhone to record the activity.

Initial findings indicate one woman slipped underwater and began to struggle. When the second attempted a rescue, she too drowned, followed by the third woman. Within minutes, the tragedy claimed all three lives. CCTV footage from the resort corroborates the sequence, showing the young women struggling before succumbing to the water.

Investigation Underway

The resort staff discovered the lifeless bodies and immediately raised the alarm. Ullal Police Inspector H N Balakrishna and his team are conducting an investigation. Preliminary reports suggest the women were non-swimmers, and the lack of safety measures contributed to the tragedy.

The resort is owned by Manohar, as per police records. While the formal case is yet to be registered, the incident has raised serious questions about safety protocols at resorts offering pool facilities.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 11,2024

Mangaluru: Six youths including teenagers have been arrested by the Bantwal Rural Police in connection with a brutal assault on 21-year-old Aboobakar (name changed to hide identity), an incident that was widely shared on social media after footage revealed the victim tied to a pole and violently beaten.

The arrested individuals, all from Kanchinadkapadavu, Sajipanadu village in Ullal Taluk, have been identified as Mohammad Sapwan (25), Mohammad Rizwan (25), Irfan (27), Anis Ahmad (19), Nasir (27), and Shakeer (18). According to police reports, the assault took place on November 7 in Kanchinadkapadavu.

The sequence of events began when Aboobakar was reportedly called to a residence in Kanchinadkapadavu by a female relative. Upon his arrival, he was confronted by the accused, who questioned his presence, tied him to a pole with ropes, and attacked him while he was shirtless. 

Aboobakar managed to file a police complaint the following day, detailing the assault. As his injuries worsened, he was admitted to a private hospital in Mangaluru.

While in the hospital, Aboobakar alleged that his attackers intended to kill him during the assault. This statement led to additional charges of attempted murder being filed. 

Police officials stated that the suspects were subsequently apprehended, charged with group assault and attempted murder, and placed in judicial custody. The investigation is ongoing, and further details are awaited.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.