This article has been written by Ms. Shreya Bhattacharya, a 2nd year BBA LL. B Student from Adamas University, Kolkata.
The writ of habeas corpus has traditionally been seen as an effective tool for securing the imprisoned person’s release from custody. It must be noted that the writ’s main goal was to determine whether imprisonment was legal. Even so, the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus does not absolve the individual who is being held from responsibility. It doesn’t determine whether he is guilty; it just guarantees his release from custody. A person’s right to habeas corpus, which literally translates as “to produce the body,” protects them from being arbitrarily and illegally detained. Whether the person has been arrested in accordance with the legal process is determined by the habeas corpus petitions. One of the five writs by which a person may request the Supreme Court or the High Courts to uphold his fundamental rights is habeas corpus.
In India, the right to personal liberty has always been revered, and the writ of habeas corpus safeguards it in the event of an unlawful arrest or incarceration. Because personal freedom is so crucial, the judiciary has abandoned the conventional locus standi doctrine. Therefore, any other person may move a petition on behalf of a detained individual if that person is not in a position to do so themselves. The judiciary has gone a step further and abandoned tight pleadings regulations. The following cases ruled by the Indian judiciary may be used to explain the expanding reach of the writ of habeas corpus.
When will the writ of Habeas Corpus lie?
In all instances of unjustified infringement on an individual’s right to privacy, the writ of habeas corpus is a potential remedy. It is a procedure for ensuring the subjects’ freedom by providing an efficient method for their prompt release from unjustified or unlawful confinement, whether in a jail or in private custody. The Supreme Court and the High Courts are granted a wide range of authority by the Constitution to issue writs of habeas corpus.
Although not a fundamental right, the right to petition a High Court under Article 226 is still a constitutional right. This is in contrast to the right to petition the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the enforcement of fundamental right.
When will it not lie?
A writ of habeas corpus will not be valid under the following circumstances, and the court will reject it:
- if the subject of the petition for habeas corpus does not reside within the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
- when a person is imprisoned or detained in accordance with a judgement made by a court of law or by an authority acting in line with the law.
Cases
- In the case of Malkiat Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh – A person’s son was allegedly illegally detained by police authorities. It was determined that the boy was slain during a police contact. The petitioner was given Rs. 5,00,000 in compensation by the court.
- In the case of Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra – The petitioner in this case, a human rights activist, filed a writ petition on behalf of the women detainees who had been abused in the jail after writing a letter to the supreme court about their conditions. The court dispatched an investigation authority to compare the facts with the claims made by the plaintiff. The accusations were proven to be true. According to the ruling, someone else may apply for a writ on behalf of a person who is imprisoned or otherwise restricted, which nullified the locus standi strategy.
- In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras –The constitutionality of the preventative detention legislation was questioned. If a legislature restricts someone’s personal freedom, it should be capable of doing so in the first place. If the law that supports the detention turns out to be illegal, the detention is also illegal. One has the right to go before the court. If the High Court grants or denies a request for a writ of habeas corpus, the applicant may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
- In the case of Nilabati Behra v. The State of Orissa- The Orissa police detained the petitioner’s son in order to question him. All of the attempts to find him proved to be fruitless. So the court received the writ petition for habeas corpus. The petitioner’s son’s body was discovered on the railroad track while it was still pending. The petitioner received compensation in the amount of Rs. 150,000.
- In the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration- The court determined that a writ petition for habeas corpus could be filed, not only to challenge the prisoner’s unjust or illegal imprisonment but also to ensure that he is protected from any mistreatment or bias on the part of the people in charge of his detention. As a result, the petition for wrongful detention may be submitted, and it may be examined how the custody was initiated.
- In Additional district magistrate of Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla- This lawsuit, also referred to as the habeas corpus case, was founded on the justifications for issuing and the viability of this writ. The emergency that was declared and the debate over whether or not the writ of habeas corpus may be maintained in this circumstance are at the center of this case. It was determined that a state had the authority to restrict rights, including the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, in an emergency, just as it was determined in the Liversidge v. Anderson case during which time all rights were held suspended. The worst day in Indian history was thought to have occurred because of this choice.
- In Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate Darjeeling & Ors– It was determined that, rather than using the customary approach of presenting the corpse to the court, there should be a comprehensive focus on the legality of the detention by investigating the facts and circumstances of the case. This case concentrated on the nature and scope of the case, stating that this writ is a procedural writ rather than a substantive writ.
Conclusion
By ensuring a person’s release from unlawful detention, the judiciary has successfully employed the writ of habeas corpus to safeguard individual liberties. It can be inferred that one such right available to a person is the right of WRITS. The articles of the Indian Constitution are recognized by law, and as a result, the court has independent control over the circumstances under which writs should be granted. The purpose of writs is to make it possible to determine an individual’s rights immediately away and to assist that person in receiving the benefits of those rights.
The most significant writ a person can use to assert his or her right to liberty is the writ of habeas corpus. It serves as a corrective action that assures the detained person is released from unlawful detention. However, it doesn’t relieve anyone of their responsibility. The judiciary is effectively utilizing this writ in this way to ensure that no one is subjected to wrongful detention and thus secures liberty.
REFERENCES:-
1.https://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/wha.htm
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
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 to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening