Case Analysis: Misinterpretation Of Shariat Laws In Trolling Of Muslim Girl For Handshake With Finance Minister

Introduction

In the recent judgment of the Kerala High Court in Abdul Noushad @ Noushad Ahsani v. State of Kerala & Rizvana (Crl. M.C. No. 2575 of 2018), the issues concerning personal liberty, embracing religion, and the existing concern for constitutional rights were raised. The case focused on the fact that the petitioner's actions, criticizing the Raja Minister for shaking hands with a young Muslim woman, Rizvana, were against Shariat law as mentioned in Islam.  

Case Background

The whole issue started when a young Law student, named Rizvana, while participating in a college event, shook hands with ‘the current finance minister of Kerala’ Dr. T.M. Thomas Isaac, as part of professionalism and gratitude. A video of this whole scenic event went viral on social media and the petitioner, Abdul Noushad, filed a petition against this claiming that Rizvana was involved in adultery and she had infringed the tenets of Islam. The petitioner also claimed that this will subsequently bring public and family shame to her family as touching another man, in Islam, is considered HARAM. 
After this, Abdul Noushad was charged with a crime in jurisdictional Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 119 (a) of the Kerala Police Act for creating disharmony and promoting enmity.

Legal Issues Explored

1. Freedom of Religion and Personal Choice
A fundamental issue was raised about whether any third party could enforce its belief systems while violating other people’s lifestyle choices. The court justified and made it clear that every individual, in India, has the right to freely follow any religion they want as the question of religion is private. Under articles 25 to 28 of the constitution, everyone is entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religions, subject to public order, morality, or health.
The Court went on to hold, inter alia, that such normative practices as the prohibition of any physical contact between non-related persons of the opposite sex prescribed by Islam, are individual choices and cannot be imposed by any other person on anyone. While it cited the Quraan, the assertion also noted that there is no obligation to such practices, reaffirming the freedom of such practices to individuals.

2. Religious Norms Versus Constitutional Rights
The ruling drew the line between religious norms and that of constitutional safeguards. The petitioner in fact tried to implement one interpretation of Shariat when he claimed that shaking hands with the Minister was against the religion claiming the action as adultery. The Court nonetheless very firmly dismissed the petition by stating that no one has the right to force other people into their faith, more so if the person is freely exercising his or her constitutional right of liberty and free choice. 
The decision made it clear that all religious laws are subordinate to the Indian Constitution. This agreement has also pointed out that while freedom of religion is a fundamental right, it cannot be exercised at the expense of other fundamental rights which include gender equity and autonomy.

The Role of Section 153 IPC and Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act

1. Section 153 IPC: Promoting Enmity Between Groups
According to Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code, any activity that brings hatred among different communities based on religion, color, race, or any other grounds is a criminal offense. In the present situation, the comments made by the petitioner and the distribution of the video were regarded as a part of a criminal offense as those comments could have harmed Rizwana mentally, and if disputes had arisen against her, then physically as well.
Justice Kunhikrishnan noted that such actions would also cause communal tensions, which is against the provisions of Section 153 IPC. The petitioner’s attempts to abuse the Respondent’s personal space by provoking the public against the Respondent based on his view of the Shariat law were seen as a threat to social order.

2. Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act: Harm to Reputation and Public Order
Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act penalizes all actions that tend to harm any individual’s reputation or threaten public safety. The widespread circulation of the video on social media, along with the petitioner’s burning remarks, had serious consequences for Rizvana and her family’s reputation. The Court noted that this had caused substantial damage to her personal and professional reputation, and the petitioner’s actions were an attempt to defame and boycott her within the community.
With reference to Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act, the Court recognized that electronic media, particularly social platforms, shall not be used to harm individuals, and the judiciary must protect citizens from such malicious acts.

Gender and Religious Norms in Contemporary Society

The decision further pointed out the interaction of gender and religion within the scope of the present day. In Islam, for example, it is customarily prohibited for a member of the opposite sex to touch another person in public. Nevertheless, the Court regarded such practices as individual assessments which all individuals are entitled to and which should be considered with respect. The Court also emphasized that there is no right or reason for anyone else to judge or condemn Rizvana for wanting to shake hands with the male politician in question – this was her choice to make in her profession.
The judgment in this case, however, acts as a strong alert concerning one-sided restrictions on gender roles imposed in the name of religion. Such practices will not be tolerated especially whenever they seek to interfere with the constitutional enactments on equality and the right to free association. Justice Kunhikrishnan stated that the personal freedom of a citizen is a part of the basic structure of the constitution, thereby allowing every citizen the right to live their life any way they wish without any fear of societal or religious outcomes.

Social Implications of the Judgement

1. Freedom from Religious Extremism
The Court's ruling in this case serves as an effective way to stop people from telling anyone to do anything to prove their virtue just for the sake of religion. It points to the need for self-determination in a society in which several religions are practiced. To dismiss petitioners’ claims, the Court also mentioned that there is no basis for citizens to be exposed to ridicule or legal action for that matter on religious grounds.

2. The Role of Social Media in Religious and Public Discourse
The instance demonstrates the increasing importance attached to social networks concerning combating religious and moral issues. In Rizvana's situation, the woman who made a petition resorted to social networks to provoke a negative attitude towards her and build a narrative concerning her actions that caused her problems on personal and family levels. – It is emphasized in the ruling that the courts will not accept social abuse to spread falsehoods or hatred.

Upholding the Supremacy of the Constitution

One pertinent lesson that emerges from this judgment has to be an advocacy for a clear separation of religion and the state in favor of the latter. J. Kunhikrishnan stated that all religious law in whatever form can never prevail over the Indian Constitution. The judgment in a way tells us about the fact once again that, although India is a diverse country with so many religions, still THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA will always be the supreme law of the country. 

Conclusion

The Court's ruling in this case serves as an effective way to tell the public that nobody has the right to defame anyone in the name of religion or religious laws. India is a country where the focus is on protecting everyone's dignity and personal liberty and everyone has the right to live his/her life freely in any manner they want regardless of the religion they are following. If there are certain personal laws of the concerned religion then it is the discretion of the citizens which rules they consider reasonable to follow.