In a significant procedural challenge concerning personal liberty and alleged illegal detention, the Kerala High Court stepped in to examine a habeas corpus plea filed by three parents claiming their adult daughters were being unlawfully confined within a religious congregation. The case raised a critical constitutional question, can courts intervene in personal choices of adults under the guise of parental concern, or does individual autonomy prevail even in deeply personal decisions like faith and vocation?
The controversy began when the petitioners alleged that their daughters, aged between 21 and 30, were being held against their will by members of the “Monastery of Holy Ruah,” especially after the congregation lost recognition from the Archdiocese of Thrissur. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the women had been influenced into adopting a rigid spiritual life detrimental to their well-being, stressing that parental guidance should not be rendered meaningless even after children attain majority.
However, the State, relying on police inquiries, maintained that the women had voluntarily chosen to remain in the congregation and were not under any form of coercion or restraint.
The Court firmly rejected the plea, underscoring that habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy that cannot be invoked in the absence of clear evidence of illegal detention. Drawing heavily from constitutional jurisprudence on individual autonomy, the bench observed, “the choice… with regard to their beliefs or the congregation that they must join is a matter that rests exclusively within the private domain of the individual concerned.” It further noted that there was no material to establish that the women were under the physical control of the respondents, and that their own statements confirmed voluntary participation.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere in what it termed a matter of personal choice.
Picture Source :
