Madras High Court dismisses ‘Love Jihad’ case



The Madras High Court recently dismissed a ‘Love Jihad’ case, saying that Ms. Harshita, the love lady is a 25-year-old major and had voluntarily converted to Islam and applied for Bangladeshi citizenship. to live with her husband there.

The Court was considering a petition filed by a father who alleged that his daughter was the victim of radicalization, undue influence, coercion, kidnapping and captivity violating all her rights and human dignity.

The petitioner questioned his daughter’s conversion to Islam, her marriage to a Bangladeshi national, her renunciation of her Indian citizenship and her voluntary application for Bangladeshi citizenship.

The father argued that his daughter’s application for Bangladesh citizenship was made under threat, coercion and undue influence and should therefore not be considered.

He further argued that since the issuance of any certificate would impact his daughter’s rights under Section 21 of the Constitution, court intervention was necessary.

He pleaded with the Court to order the central government to refrain from declaration of renunciation of Indian citizenship and not to give NOC (No Objection Certificate) or Certificate of Renunciation of Indian Citizenship to his daughter.

The court observed that the girl was of age and currently residing with her husband in Bangladesh. A Habeas Corpus petition was filed earlier by the father seeking the deportation of his daughter from Bangladesh to India.

The said petition was closed after the court recorded Harshita’s statement that she voluntarily converted to Islam and applied for Bangladeshi citizenship on her own accord.

Judge Abdul Qudhose, who heard the pending case, ruled that based on the record of an earlier habeas corpus petition filed by the father, the National Investigation Agency had submitted a closing report to the Tribunal. special for the affairs of the NIA regarding the complaint filed by the petitioner.

The judge noted that in such circumstances, this court is of the view that the issue of granting relief to the petitioner as requested in the motion in brief will not arise and dismissed the motion.


Comments are closed.