The Kerala government has challenged the NIA probe into the Love Jihad case. Submitting an affidavit in the Supreme Court, the Kerala government said that it has been two months since the NIA has been probing the case, but the agency has found no concrete evidence that Love Jihad exists.
It may be recalled that the Supreme Court on the last date of hearing had asked how the High Court could annul the marriage.
The investigation conducted so far by the Kerala police has not revealed any incident relating to the commission of any scheduled offenses to make a report to the Central government under Section 6 of the NIA Act,’ the affidavit stated. The affidavit contended that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of Kerala Police has conducted ‘detailed investigation’ into the conversion of the 24-year-old Hindu woman and her subsequent marriage to a Muslim man.
It added that the ‘Kerala Police is competent to conduct an investigation in such crimes’ and it would have reported to the Central government in case of any incident requiring the involvement of NIA.
On the last date of hearing the SC had said that the question is not about Love Jihad, but whether the High Court could annul a marriage. Changing its preliminary view, the SC said that a father cannot be seen dictating the personal life of a 24-year-old daughter.
A Hindu girl had married a Muslim in Kerala and the marriage was annulled by the High Court. The SC had directed that an NIA probe be conducted after allegations of Love Jihad surfaced. Earlier a Bench headed by former Chief Justice J S Khehar had ordered the NIA probe. On Tuesday, the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra sought to know if the SC could have ordered an NIA probe in this case.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for the Muslim man criticised the decision of the SC which ordered an NIA probe. Dave said that the SC had exceeded its jurisdiction. The SC observed that major girls have a free choice.
The NIA submitted that it had found a pattern in Kerala. The Bench, however, shot back stating, ‘ pattern or no pattern, could the HC have annulled the marriage. The SC also said that a 24-year-old cannot be confined by her father.
OneIndia News
