Enrollment No…………………… DR. RMLNLU, LKO B.A. LL.B./Ist Sem./ET/Mar.

-21/BoCL
Time - 05 Hours Max-Marks :- 70
March - 2021
Basics of Case Law
Note: Read the instructions carefully before attempting the answers:
(i) The Question Paper is divided into 2 Sections i.e. Section - A and Section - B.
(ii) The Examinee is required to attempt any 3 (three) Questions from Section - A, and any 2 (two)
Questions from Section - B. Figures in the margin indicate the Marks.
(iii) The assignment has to be submitted in a handwritten form. No other format would be acceptable.
(iv) The examinee has to write the answer in A4 Size or equivalent size sheets, ruled or un-ruled.
(v) The examinee must write his/her name, enrollment number, name of the subject on the first page of
the answer.
(vi) The examinee has to mention his/her name and enrollment on every subsequent page.
(vii) The examinee must write down the page no. on every page in the format (No. of page of total pages)
example-1 of 12, 2 of 12 etc.
(viii) The examinee must ensure that the scanned copy of the answer script is clear and legible, in PDF
format and uploaded as a single file and size should not be more than 30 MB. In case the office
receives multiple files of the answer script, only first response received shall be considered and other
responses shall be ignored.
(ix) The name of the PDF file of the answer script must be (Enrollment No) (underscore) (Paper Name)
for Example 150101154_Jurisprudence.
(x) The Scanned copy of the same has to be uploaded on Google form through the link-
https://forms.gle/tMbQ5t2jciVK9wRB7 till 04:00 PM on 24/03/2021. Examinee must be
careful while uploading the answer script as only first response would be accepted. Examinees must
also take care before uploading the PDF file of answer script that all the pages of the script have been
added in the PDF file.
Only responses received through Google Form will be accepted. Answers
received through email will not be considered.
(xi) In case of any technical difficulty the examinee may contact Dr. Aman Deep Singh, Associate
Controller of Examinations on +91-9793085772, +91-8840353326 or 0522-2425902, 3, 4 Extn. 136.
(xii) The students must note that they are required to finish the writing of answers in three hours while
they have to answer one long question less. The time of two hours is more than sufficient for
downloading paper and uploading the answer-sheets. They must submit their answer sheets within 5
hours. Responses received after 04:00 PM shall be dealt in accordance with the notification no. 332-21
dated 10.03.2021(http://rmlnlu.ac.in/pdf/Notice_regarding_110321.pdf) available on the University
Website. If they fail to do so they would be afforded another opportunity to appear in the physical
examination in such papers after the reopening of the University but, in the interests of the students,
the chance will not be counted as a repeat paper. The University would ensure justice to all the
students.

(SECTION – A) (03X20)
1. In India, it is not only the inter-court hierarchy but also the intra-court hierarchy that
counts in the matter of stare decisis. Do you agree? Explain, with suitable examples from
recent case law development, the importance of intra-court hierarchy.
2. What is it that is binding in a judicial decision? Explain with suitable examples and
illustrations.
3. What do you understand by a reportable and a non-reportable judgment or order of the
High Courts or the Supreme Court? Who decides that the case is reportable or non-
reportable and on what grounds? What are the consequences, if any, of reporting a non-
reportable decision? Explain with the help of examples and illustrations.
4. What are the circumstances that weaken the authority of a precedent? Discuss at least
three such circumstances with illustrative cases.
5. Explain in detail the various steps involved in briefing a case and write a case brief of the
case Anees Hameed v. State of Kerala, attached herewith.
6. Discuss in detail the various issues involved in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union
of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

(SECTION – B) (02X05)
Write short notes on any two of the following:
7. Majority opinion, dissenting opinion and concurring opinion.
8. The consequences of citing overruled decisions.
9. Standard structure of a judgment reported in a law report.
10. Relevancy of knowing facts in a case.

**************
 V. CHITAMBARESH & SATHISH NINAN, JJ.

W.P.(Crl). No.313 of 2017, I.A.Nos.15973, 15979 & 15980 of 2017

and Crl.M.C.No.5684 of 2017(Kerala HC)

th
Dated this the 19 day of October, 2017

JUDGMENT

PETITIONER:
ANEES HAMEED
v.

RESPONDENTS:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT

Chitambaresh, J.

“Love recognizes no barriers. It jumps hurdles, leaps fences, penetrates walls to arrive at its
destination full of hope.”

said Maya Angelou, the American poet, memoirist and civil right activist.

2. SruthiMeledath ('Sruthi' for short) fell in love with her classmate Anees Hameed ('Anees' for
short) while studying for the B.Sc.(Physics) course in the Pilathara Co- operative Arts &
Science College. Sruthi pursued her M.Sc. (Physics) course while Anees completed certificate
course in NDT and Piping Design and Engineering and has joined for M.B.A.(Marketing)
course through distance education. Sruthi expressed her desire to marry Anees which was
vehemently opposed by her parents on the ground that both belong to different religious
communities - Hindu and Muslim. Sruthi quietly left her parental home on 16.05.2017 along
with Anees to New Delhi and it is stated that a mock marriage was conducted thereat after she
got converted to Islam. The couple had a live-in-relationship for about a month - initially at New
Delhi and later at Sonepat in Haryana - during which time Anees was working in a private
establishment.

3. It appears that the father of Sruthi preferred a complaint alleging that his daughter is missing
whereupon Crime No.329/2017 was registered on the file of the Pariyaram Medical College
Police Station. The parents of Sruthi followed it up by W.P.(Crl.)No.206/2017 on the file of this
Court which was disposed of observing that a 'proper investigation' is under progress. The police
later took the couple into custody on 20.06.2017 from their residence at Sonepat and brought
them to the Pariyaram Medical College Police Station via Mangalore by flight. Anees and Sruthi
were produced separately before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur on
21.06.2017 obviously to screen one from the other while recording their statements. Sruthi was
handed over to her parents who took her to a Yoga Kendra at Udayamperoor in Ernakulam
wherein she was lodged as an inmate along with other hapless girls who exceeded forty in
number. Anees was totally in the dark about the whereabouts of Sruthi and therefore preferred
C.M.P.No.4727/2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur.
The Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate by order dated 27.06.2017 issued a search
warrant under Section 97 Cr.P.C. to trace out Sruthi who was kept concealed by her parents.
Anees who was desperate also filed W.P.(Crl.)No.313/2017 on the file of this Court for the issue
of a writ of habeas corpus directing Sruthi to be freed from the illegal detention.

4. The parents of Sruthi however filed Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 on the file of this Court to quash
the search warrant in C.M.P.No.4728/2017 issued by the Court of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate. They on their own volition produced Sruthi in this Court on 18.08.2017 in the midst
of hearing of Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 and the learned single Judge did interact with her. It is a
fact that a frightened Sruthi at that point of time chose to remain with her parents and did not
disclose anything about her lodging at the Yoga Kendra or the torture underwent by her. Sruthi
was put back in the Yoga Kendra by her parents not only to insulate her from Anees but also to
persuade her to snap the relationship and remain as a Hindu forever. But Sruthi convincingly
insisted on joining Anees when she was produced on 22.08.2017 in the midst of hearing of
W.P.(Crl.) No.313/2017 when the earlier Division Bench passed the following order:

“5. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7 submits that in Crl.M.C. No. 5684/2017,
which was filed by respondents 6 and 7, the detenue was produced before the learned single
Judge of this Court and she had given a statement that she would like to go with her parents.

6. We interacted with the detenue. According to her, though she had given such a statement
before the learned single Judge of this Court, it was under severe pressure. Her grandfather
expired only four days back and before the said date, she was being detained for about two
months at her residence. There was force from the Deputy Superintendent of Police as well to go
along with her parents. According to her, she would like to conduct a valid marriage with the
petitioner and she does not want to change her religion.”

5. Sruthi again appeared before us in Court on 28.09.2017 and narrated the torture inflicted on
her during her stay at the Yoga Kendra from 22.06.2017 till she was produced in this Court on
22.08.2017. She stated that there were similar other girls at the Yoga Kendra who were all
woken up daily at 4 a.m. in the morning and subjected to a regimental routine throughout the
day. The girls were forced to do cooking and cleaning apart from other daily chores and were
also compelled to do yoga and hear lecture classes (Satsanga) during the rest of the day. Sruthi
wept in open court and stated that the inmates were slapped on their cheeks and kicked on their
abdomen if they disobeyed the commands in the Yoga Kendra. Sruthi added that there were
instances when a piece of cloth was inserted in her mouth to silence her when she wailed
disclosing her wish to go with Anees much to their chagrin. The picture painted by Sruthi is that
persons at the helm of affairs at the Yoga Kendra were running the institution in order to coerce
the inmates to come back to their original religion - Hindu. 6. We then suomotu impleaded the
Commissioner of Police, Kochi and the Circle Inspector of Police, Tripunithura as additional
respondents in W.P.(Crl.) No.313/2017 and directed the registration of a First Information
Report. The Commissioner of Police submitted that Crime No.1557/2017 has been registered
against the President of the Yoga Kendra and eight others assisting him. The crime has been
registered under Sections 323, 342 and 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on
the file of the Udayamperoor Police Station, Kochi City. This is in addition to Crime
No.1536/2017 registered in the Police Station against the same accused on the complaint of
another inmate who had also horrid tales of suffering to narrate. The parents of Sruthi brought to
our notice about the pendency of Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 filed by them and her stand before the
learned single Judge on 18.08.2017. We therefore called for Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 and tagged
it with the W.P.(Crl.) No.313/2017 and further directed the parties to be present in Court for
final hearing on 10.10.2017.

7. A preliminary objection was raised by the parents of Sruthi contending inter alia that this
Court is denuded of its jurisdiction to entertain W.P.(Crl.)No.313/2017 when
Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 is also pending. But W.P.(Crl.) No.313/2017 under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is filed on 10.08.2017 whereas Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is filed later on 14.08.2017. W.P.(Crl.) No.313/2017 is filed by Anees whereas Crl.M.C.
No.5684/2017 is filed by the parents of Sruthi though both relate to the illegal detention or
confinement. There is no impediment in law to club the cases for disposal on merits especially
when the cardinal issue in both pertains to the alleged illegal confinement of Sruthi. It is trite
law that all matters which can be heard and decided by a single Judge can as well be heard and
decided by a Division Bench but not vice-versa [See R.Rathinam v. State (2000) 2 SCC 391].
This is so since there is no statutory restriction passed by the Legislature prohibiting the
Division Bench from exercising the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
No exception can be taken to the course adopted by us in calling for Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017
from the Single Bench and tagging it with W.P.(Crl.)No.313/2017 for final hearing and disposal
by a common judgment.

8. Moreover such technical objections shall not be countenanced when the individual liberty of a
citizen is at stake in considering the issue of a writ of habeas corpus which is of highest
constitutional importance. Any technical plea has no room in a writ of habeas corpus and we are
fortified in this view by Ummu Sabeena v. State of Kerala [(2011) 10 SCC 781] wherein it is
held as follows:

“15. In this connection, if we may say so, the writ of habeas corpus is the oldest writ evolved by
the Common Law of England to protect the individual liberty against its invasion in the hands of
the executive or may be also at the instance of private persons. This principle of habeas corpus
has been incorporated in our constitutional law and we are of the opinion that in a democratic
republic like India where Judges function under a written Constitution and which has a chapter
on Fundamental Rights, to protect individual liberty the judges owe a duty to safeguard the
liberty not only of the citizens but also of all persons within the territory of India. The most
effective way of doing the same is by way of exercise of power by the court by issuing a writ of
habeas corpus.

16. This facet of the writ of habeas corpus makes it a writ of the highest constitutional
importance being a remedy available to the lowliest citizen against the most powerful authority
said that the writ of habeas corpus is the key that unlocks the door to freedom [See The
Common Law in India, 1960 by M.C.Setalvad, p.38.” (emphasis supplied) This Court should be
overzealous to protect the individual liberty of even the lowliest citizen of the country and
unlock the door to freedom if there is a faintest doubt that she is unlawfully confined or illegally
detained.

9. We put it to Sruthi in open court on 10.10.2017 as to why she expressed her desire to go with
her parents during the preliminary hearing in Crl.M.C.No.5684/2017 and the shift in her stand
now in W.P.(Crl.)No.313/2017. Sruthi stated that she was taken from the Yoga Kendra to
Kannur on 17.8.2017 when her grandfather died and brought to Ernakulam on the morning of
18.8.2017 itself. Sruthi further stated that she was physically and mentally exhausted by the time
she was brought to Court on the same day for the hearing in Crl.M.C. No. 5684/2017. Sruthi
added that the notice said to be published by the Popular Front of India that she would be
deported to Syria or Yemen for terrorist activities was a ploy by the Yoga Kendra to instill fear
in her. It was only during the hearing of W.P.(Crl.)No.313/2017 that she mustered courage to
divulge the true facts about her relationship with Anees which have also been recorded in the
interim order on 22.8.2017.

10. Several petitions have been filed by strangers to get themselves impleaded in
W.P.(Crl.)No.313/2017 contending that this is a case of 'Love Jihad' and that this Court should
take a serious view of the issue. I.A.No.15973/2017 has been filed by one Athira who was
allegedly an inmate of the Yoga Kendra and wanted to vividly describe the activities conducted
therein as part of 'GharWapsi'. I.A.No.15979/2017 has been filed by 'Christian Helpline' which
is said to be an organization set up to protect Christian girls who are being lured to Islam
through the 'Love Jihad'. I.A.No.15980/2017 has been filed by 'Vijnanabharathi Educational and
Charitable Society' which runs the Yoga Kendra denying the allegation of torture made by
Sruthi and another inmate. The only question that arises for adjudication in a writ of habeas
corpus is as to whether the personal liberty of the detenue is cribbed and cabined and is to be set
free. The impleading petitioners are free to depose before the police who have already launched
their investigation and the writ court is not the venue for ventilating their grievances. We
therefore dismiss all the petitions afore-mentioned for impleading without prejudice to the right
of the petitioners therein to take part in the criminal investigation if they so chose.

11. We are appalled to notice the recent trend in this State to sensationalize every case of inter-
religious marriage as either 'Love Jihad' or 'GharWapsi' even if there was platonic love between
the spouses before. The case on hand is also projected as 'Love Jihad' by the parents of Sruthi
whereas Anees alleges a case of 'GharWapsi' in a bid to coerce her to come back to the Hindu
religion. Any centre for forcible conversion or re-conversion has to be busted by the police
whether it be Hindu, Muslim or Christian lest it offends the constitutional right. Article 25(1) of
the Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen the right to freely profess, practise and
propagate any religion which cannot be trampled upon by subversive forces or religious outfits.
We are however convinced that Sruthi has been in love with Anees for long which has
blossomed into a permanent relationship leading to a marital tie. Sruthi with a 'Sindoor' on her
forehead asserted that she would remain as a Hindu till death and that Anees would remain as a
Muslim and that their marriage has now been registered too. The certificate of marriage dated
9.10.2017 issued by the Marriage Officer, Taliparamba under the Special Marriage Act, 1954
bears ample testimony to her status as a legally wedded wife. We applaud the extra- ordinary
courage shown by Sruthi to live up to her conviction and decry the attempt of her parents to
deflect the course of justice by misleading litigations. Sruthi is a Post-graduate and matured and
has discovered her life-partner in Anees and she cannot be detained against her wishes either at
her parental home or in the Yoga Kendra. Sruthi is ordered to be set at liberty and it is for the
couple to decide their future course of action without any interference from her parents or from
any corner whatsoever which the police shall ensure.

12. This judgment will not be complete without quoting from Lata Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh [2006) 5 SCC 475] wherein it is observed as follows:

“17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed, the better. In fact, it
is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the
nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result
in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the
country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with
violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or
threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished.
This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry
whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or
inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with
the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and
cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage.”

We caution that every case of inter-religious marriage shall not be portrayed on a religious
canvass and create fissures in the communal harmony otherwise existing in the God's Own
Country - Kerala.

W.P.(Crl.)No.313/2017 is allowed and Crl.M.C. No.5684/2017 is dismissed. No costs.