The Kerala High Court made it categorically clear that no one can impose religious beliefs upon another. It is the duty of the court to protect the personal liberty of a person whose rights are being violated by imposing religion.
The Kerala High Court made this reference in an order refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against an Islamic preacher who allegedly raised allegations against a Muslim girl that she had committed adultery and violated Sharia law. This man was charged under section 153 A of IPC (intending to disrupt communal harmony) and section 119 A of the Kerala Police Act(atrocities against women).
On August 18, 2016, Dr T M Thomas Issac, the then Finance Minister of Kerala, had an interactive session at a Law College run by Markaz (The institution of a prominent Sunni faction in Kerala). During the session, the students who asked questions to the Minister were invited to the stage. One of the girls who went on stage, a second year Law student, shook hands with the Minister.
A few days later, Naushad Ahsani, an Islamic preacher raised the allegation that by shaking hands with a man who was not a blood relative, the girl had committed adultery. He alleged that the girl violated Sharia Law. According to the complaint filed by the girl at Kundamangalam Police Station in Kozhikkode, the video of her shaking hand with the Minister was circulated in WhatsApp groups along with the derogatory speech by Naushad Ahsani. This had caused disgrace to her and her famiy, she said.
Naushad Ahsani approached the High Court for quashing the charge sheet by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court. He argued that his speech does not attract the offences furnished in the relevant sections of IPC and the Police Act. The High Court dismissed this argument and highlighted that no one has the right to impose their views of religion upon others.
“What is the business of the petitioner to attack the 2nd respondent when the 2nd respondent voluntarily decided to give a handshake to the Hon’ble Minister while accepting a gift for participating in a discussion,” asks Justice P V Kunhikrishnan. "Religious beliefs are personal. There is no compulsion in religion, especially in Islam. One cannot compel another to follow his religious practice by the latter. Religious practice is a personal choice of every citizen of this country’ observed the court."
"A young brave Muslim girl comes forward and says that, it violates her personal freedom of religious belief. In such situations, our Constitution will protect her interest. Moreover, it is the duty of the society to support her. No religious belief is above the Constitution and the Constitution is supreme," the court said. The court has underlined that she has the right to practise religion in her own way and that her personal liberty has to be protected. Whether the accused man is guilty of the offences is a matter of trial in which the High Court would not interfere, the single bench of the High Court makes it categorically clear.
