The Kerala High Court recently declined to dismiss criminal proceedings against a man who publicly criticized a Muslim girl for shaking hands with former State Finance Minister T.M. Thomas Isaac at an event.

The accused argued that the law student’s act of shaking hands with the Minister constituted adultery and contravened Shariat law. In a ruling delivered on October 1,

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan emphasized that the decision to shake hands was a personal choice made by the girl and that she should not be forced to adhere to any religious practices against her will. The Court also highlighted that there is no compulsion in religion, particularly in Islam.

"Religious beliefs are personal. There is no compulsion in religion, especially in Islam. One cannot compel another to follow his religious practice by the latter. Religious practice is a personal choice of every citizen of this country. A perusal of Article 25 of the Constitution of India would show that subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of that Part of the constitution, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.", the Court said in its order.

The Court further stated that the right to propagate religion does not entail the imposition of religious practices on others.

"Propagate religion does not mean that the religious practice should be imposed on others...Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution of India do not permit a person to impose his religious beliefs on another," the Court said.

The Court also cited verses from the Quran to illustrate that religious texts advocate for personal freedom, noting that no one has the right to impose their beliefs or practices on another individual.

"In Islam, physical contact between unrelated members of the opposite sex including a handshake is generally considered ‘haram’ (forbidden). This prohibition is based on Quranic Verses (eg.24:30-31, 33:35), Hadiths (saying of Prophet Muhammad) and Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh). According to the Muslim religion, the reason for this prohibition is modesty and humility, avoiding the potential temptation of fitnah and maintaining moral boundaries. But the Quranic Verses emphasize personal choice as far as religion is concerned. Surah Al-Kafirun (109:6) says, “For you is your religion, and for me is my religion”. Surah AlBaqarah (2:256) says that “There is no compulsion in religion”," the Court explained.

The case against the man arose from an interactive session with Dr. T.M. Thomas Isaac organized by Markaz Law College. During the event, a Muslim girl in her second year of law school posed a question to Dr. Isaac and was subsequently called on stage to receive a gift, where she shook hands with the Minister.

Following the event, a Facebook post and a WhatsApp video circulated, framing the handshake as a violation of Shariat law. In the video, the petitioner, Abdul Noushad, made similar remarks and accused the girl of adultery. In response, the girl filed a complaint against Noushad, alleging that his actions had brought disgrace to her and her family. As a result, he was charged under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code (provocation with intent to cause a riot) and Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act (degrading the dignity of women).

Noushad then approached the Court to quash the proceedings against him, arguing that the charges were not applicable given the circumstances. However, the Court noted that he had not denied making the remarks, leading it to conclude that he should be tried for the offense.

The Court emphasized that societal beliefs and religious practices must conform to the Constitution of India and that society has a duty to support the young law student. “A young brave Muslim girl comes forward and says that it violates her personal freedom of religious belief. In such situations, our Constitution will protect her interests. Moreover, it is the duty of society to support her. No religious belief is above the Constitution, and the Constitution is supreme,” the Court stated in its ruling.

Consequently, the Court dismissed Noushad's petition and instructed the trial court to expedite the case. Noushad was represented by advocate V.A. Vinod, while Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith T.R. appeared on behalf of the State.

Case Title: Abdul Noushad v State of Kerala & anr