Kerala government questions NIA probe over Hadiya case, submits affidavit to Supreme Court
New Delhi, October 7: The Kerala Government has questioned the Supreme Court-mandated NIA investigation into the issue of alleged Love-Jihad after the marriage of a Hindu woman with a Muslim man after she converted to Islam.
The state home department after presenting the affidavit to the Supreme Court stated that the investigation by the Kerala Police did not reveal anything crucial to be investigated by the National Investigation Agency.
Kerala Love Jihad: Kerala govt filed an affidavit in Supreme Court
— News World India (@NewsWorldIN) October 7, 2017
In the affidavit, Kerala govt states that Kerala Police had conducted a thorough investigation in an efficient manner.
— ANI (@ANI) October 7, 2017
It adds Kerala police competent to investigate such crimes & would’ve reported to Centre if any scheduled offence would’ve been found
— ANI (@ANI) October 7, 2017
Also says, in view of order passed by SC report of the case has been handed over to NIA, in compliance of such order
— ANI (@ANI) October 7, 2017
The affidavit disputed that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of Kerala Police have carried out a “detailed investigation” into the conversion of the 24-year-old Hindu woman following her marriage to a Muslim man, Sheffin Jahan.
Following an order by the Kerala High Court in May, the Kerala Police started investigation during June. The investigation team has informed the Supreme Court that “there is existing a pattern to convert Hindu girls to Islam and get them married to Muslim men”.
KERALA govt wants to shove Love Jihad under the carpet, protect PFI, Campus front and SDPI for a few votes. A very dangerous game.
— KSV SUBRAMANIAN (@KSVSUBRAMANIAN) October 7, 2017
During a hearing on this case, the Supreme Court observed that “prima facie”, the high court is not able to nullify the marriage of a Hindu woman with a Muslim man after her conversion.
The Supreme court while hearing the case also remarked that her father cannot have the sole control over a 25-year-old woman and that the claim can’t be made in respect of an adult.