NIA questions Shefin Jahan again

In early December 2017, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) questioned Shefin Jahan in Kochi as part of its probe into his marriage with Hadiya, a 25-year-old woman whose conversion to Islam and marriage had become a national controversy. The questioning took place days after the Supreme Court of India had permitted the federal agency to proceed with its investigation, even as it was simultaneously hearing Jahan’s appeal against the annulment of their marriage.

Supreme Court Sanction for the Probe

The NIA’s action followed a late November 2017 hearing in the Supreme Court. Shefin Jahan had filed a petition challenging a May 2017 order from the Kerala High Court, which had not only annulled his marriage but also directed the NIA to investigate the circumstances surrounding Hadiya’s conversion. The High Court’s decision, which placed an adult woman in the custody of her parents, was highly unusual and had been widely criticized.

While the Supreme Court did free Hadiya from her parents’ custody, allowing her to return to her medical studies in Salem, Tamil Nadu, it did not halt the NIA investigation. The court gave the agency the nod to continue its work, leading directly to the summons for Jahan in Kochi. The case was framed by Hadiya’s father and some Hindu nationalist groups as an instance of “love jihad,” a contentious term for an alleged conspiracy to convert Hindu women through marriage.

Allegations of Extremist Links

The core of the NIA’s investigation centered on Jahan’s alleged associations. According to reports from the time, the agency claimed to have evidence linking Jahan to individuals connected with extremist ideologies. Specifically, the NIA probe suggested Jahan was in contact with Manseed and P. Safvan, two men who were charge-sheeted in the Omar-al-Hindi case, which involved an alleged ISIS-inspired module in Kerala.

The agency reported that these connections were facilitated through online platforms, including a Facebook group associated with the Popular Front of India (PFI), a Muslim organization that was itself under scrutiny by federal agencies. The NIA had previously informed the Supreme Court that it possessed evidence of Jahan holding talks with individuals tied to ISIS before he married Hadiya, a claim that formed a key part of the justification for the ongoing probe.

Contradictions in the Couple’s Account

A significant part of the investigation focused on discrepancies in how Jahan and Hadiya met. The couple had reportedly stated they connected through a matrimonial website. However, the NIA’s probe into the website’s records, as detailed in reports, suggested otherwise. The agency found that while Jahan had created a profile in September 2015 and Hadiya’s was created in April 2016, neither had viewed the other’s profile on the platform.

According to the NIA’s findings, Hadiya viewed 49 profiles and Jahan viewed 67, but their paths did not cross online. The investigation instead pointed to an introduction made through a mutual acquaintance. The agency’s report suggested that the marriage proposal was initiated in August 2016 by a man named Muneer, who was a friend of Jahan. This contradiction was presented by the agency as evidence that the marriage was part of a pre-arranged and organized effort rather than a spontaneous romantic union.

The Kerala High Court Annulment

The entire sequence of events was set in motion by the Kerala High Court’s order of May 24, 2017. Acting on a habeas corpus petition filed by Hadiya’s father, K. M. Asokan, a division bench of the court declared the marriage null and void. The court described the marriage as a “sham” and expressed doubts about its validity, suggesting it was orchestrated to remove Hadiya from her parents’ lawful custody after her conversion.

The High Court’s judgment granted custody of Hadiya, an adult, to her father and confined her to her parental home for months. It was this annulment and the loss of her personal liberty that Shefin Jahan challenged in the Supreme Court, raising fundamental questions about individual autonomy, religious freedom, and the jurisdiction of courts over the marital choices of consenting adults. The NIA’s questioning of Jahan was a direct consequence of that initial High Court order, with its findings intended to be submitted to the Supreme Court as it considered the appeal.

Questions about this record