Writ of habeas corpus acts as a legal remedy for the person who has been illegally detained by the police authorities or by any other public authority. Habeas corpus basically means to present the body in front of the court. The purpose of this writ is to release any person who is illegally detained or is under unlawful imprisonment. It is against the Right to freedom and personal liberty to detain any person unlawfully, so habeas corpus provides a legal remedy for it. Writ of habeas corpus was made as an effective measure to provide a remedy to any person who has been deprives of his right of person liberty without any legal justification. But initially it was not used for complaining about past illegal detention. But Supreme Court in Rahul Shah v. State of Bihar, expanded the dimension of this writ and included compensation is to be paid for past illegal detention and for loss of life.

The writ of habeas corpus is a remedy available to all the people that are deprived of their right to personal liberty through wrongful detention or imprisonment. It acts as an effective measure for immediate release of that person from public or private custody. The Constitution of India has given powers to the High Court and the Supreme Court to issue writ of habeas corpus. The right to move to Supreme Court given under Article 22 is itself a fundamental right specified under the Constitution and the right to move to High Court under Article 226 is though not a fundamental right, but a constitutional right provided to the citizens of India.

The procedure of how habeas corpus works is that the inmate or any person acting on behalf of that prisoner has the right to file for this writ to argue the legal basis on which he/she is being detained. The court holds the hearing of both the prisoner and the government, so that evidence can be provided by both to prove whether there is a legal basis for detention. The court may also summon people for additional procedure. on the basis of evidence provided the court may grant relief like release from prison, reduction in the sentence of the prisoner, an order to release the person from illegal detention, and a declaration of rights.

Situations when the Writ of Habeas Corpus may be refused:

• In cases where the court does not have territorial jurisdiction over the person detained, then the writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued.
• If the detention of that person is related or based on the order by a Court.
• If the person detained has been set free already.
• When the illegal confinement has been made legitimate by removing any defects.
• During a national emergency writ of habeas corpus will not be available.
• When a competent court has dismissed the petition on the grounds of merits.

If there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner, the petitioner still has the right to file for writ of habeas corpus. The grant of writ is not refused on the ground that an alternate remedy is available in that case or situation.

The burden of proof in the case is on the person or authority that has dons the illegal detention to satisfy the court and prove that the detention was legitimate and legal. But if the aggrieved person claims that the detention was outside the jurisdiction of the detaining authority then it is up to the aggrieved person to prove to the court the same.

Case Laws:

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, in this case the preventive detention act was examined based on its constitutional validity. It was said that if a legislature is restraining a person from his/her personal liberty it should be competent enough to do so. Detention was considered unlawful when provision of law backing that detention is unlawful. So, a person has the right to approach the court to issue writ of habeas corpus against the illegal detention.
• ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, this case is also called the habeas corpus case as the question raised in this case was whether the writ of habeas corpus is available in the situation of an emergency. It was said that considering the decision given in Liversidge v. Anderson, it was stated that the writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable in situation of an emergency. It was said that the state has the power to retain the rights given under Article 21 in case emergency has been declared in a state.
• Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa, petitioner’s son was taken by the Orissa police for interrogation related to a case. All efforts were made by the family to find the whereabouts of their son, but they could not find him anywhere. So, a writ of habeas corpus was filed in front of the court. While the petition was still pending the dead body of their son was found on the railway track. The petitioner in this case was awarded Rs. 1,50,000.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge