CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON HABEAS CORPUS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

NAME: ABHISHEK KUMAR

ROLL NO. : 2830341
BRANCH: B.A. LLB
SECTION: B
INTRODUCTION:
The Constitution of India gives different Fundamental rights to every one of its residents. The procurements for
the legitimate requirement of these Fundamental rights are additionally given in the Constitution. In basic terms,
implementation of the Fundamental rights is defended with the assistance of five privilege Writs. Writs are only
composed requests of the court requesting a gathering to which it is tended to perform or quit performing a
predetermined demonstration. So Article 32 engages the Supreme Court while Article 226 enables the High
Courts to issue writs against any power of the State in order to authorize the Fundamental rights. The “State” is
characterized under Article 12 of the Constitution and incorporates the Government and the Parliament of India,
Government and the Legislatures of the States and all different powers inside the Indian Territory or under the
control of Government of India. “Different powers” is an expression that incorporates business associations and
residents. One of the important writs for individual freedom is “Habeas Corpus” which signifies “You may have
the body”. In the event that any individual is kept in jail or a private care without legitimate legitimization; this
writ is issued to the power limiting such individual, to create him/her under the watchful eye of the Court. The
Court mediates here and requests that the power give the motivations to such confinement and if there is no
legitimization, the individual kept is sans set. The candidate for this writ can either be the individual in
detainment or any individual following up for his/her benefit to ensure his/her freedom. This writ
accommodates quick help if there should arise an occurrence of unlawful detainment. It is the most significant
writ for individual freedom. Habeas Corpus signifies, “Let us have the body.” A man, when captured, can move
the Court for the issue of Habeas Corpus. It is a request by a Court to the keeping power to deliver the captured
individual before it with the goal that it might inspect whether the individual has been kept legitimately or
something else. On the off chance that the Court is persuaded that the individual is illicitly kept, it can issue
orders for his discharge.

It is the most valuable writ for personal liberty. Habeas Corpus means, "Let us have the body." A person, when
arrested, can move the Court for the issue of Habeas Corpus. It is an order by a Court to the detaining authority
to produce the arrested person before it so that it may examine whether the person has been detained lawfully or
otherwise. If the Court is convinced that the person is illegally detained, it can issue orders for his release.

History of the Habeas Corpus

The Magna Carta, a historic document that King John signed in 1215 AD, is the earliest known reference to
Habeas Corpus. No man shall be seized or imprisoned, unless by the lawful judgement of his peers and by the
law of the land, according to the 39th clause of this historic constitution. The idea of habeas corpus is ingrained
in legal systems all over the world. For instance, in the United States, Congress explicitly allowed the federal
courts to give habeas corpus relief to federal prisoners by the First Judiciary Act of 1789.

Illustration:

A has been taken into custody by B a police officer without a warrant. All the efforts made by A’s family to
know the whereabouts of A turned out to be futile. As he was detained wrongfully by B (police officer), the writ
of habeas corpus can be filed in court by A’s family on his behalf.
GROUNDS FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS:
 When a person is detained without any violation of law.
 When a person is detained and not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours.
 When a person gets detention which is unconstitutional.

 When a person is detained without any violation of law.

Sometimes a person may be detained without any charge or without any conviction order given by any
competent Court, but on the apprehension in the mind of the Executive Authority that the person may commit
any act which is harmful to the public interest. For example - The government authority can arrest anyone under
The Special Powers Act, 1974 on the basis of their doubt that the person may be involved in any illegal
activities. But if the person is not submitted before the court thereafter for the justification of his detention, then
the opportunity of writ of Habeas Corpus has created in favor of the detained person.

 When a person is detained and not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours.

Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India provides that every person who is arrested and detained in custody
shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within twenty-four hours of such arrest, excluding the time
necessary for the journey from the place of detention to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be
detained in custody beyond the given period without the authority of a magistrate. If the person being detained
is not produce before the magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest the detained have the constitutional remedies
of habeas corpus.

 When a person gets detention which is unconstitutional.

The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is protected as one of the Fundamental Rights in favor of the citizens of
Bangladesh under Article 32 of the Constitution which shall not be violated by any person or any authority by
going beyond Law. Thus a person is authorized to live his/her life in their own way by maintaining Laws and
Order of the State for the time being in force. In the case of absence of adequate remedy to the violation of any
of the Fundamental Rights, the protection under writ petition shall be disclosed.

FEATURES OF HABEAS CORPUS:

 The writ of habeas corpus primarily acts as a writ of enquiry; it is issued by the courts to ascertain the
grounds of detention of an individual. Therefore, it acts as a procedural safeguard against the law
enforcement authorities, specifically their power to take into custody.
 Moreover, if sufficient legal grounds of arrest are missing, the court will order the immediate release of
the individual.
 As a fundamental instrument for safeguarding an individual’s freedom against arbitrary and lawless state
action, the writ of habeas corpus serves as a procedural device, by which executive, judicial, or other
governmental restraints on personal liberty are subjected to judicial scrutiny.
 The Writ of Habeas Corpus is a remedy available to the person who has lost his personal liberty and as
such, it cannot be invoked to challenge past illegal detentions.
  However, the Supreme Court has expanded the dimension of this writ and now the Court awards
compensation not only for past illegal detentions but also for loss of life as was done in the case of
Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar.

When Habeas Corpus May 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 basic right, the right to petition a High Court under Article 226 is nonetheless a constitutional
right. This is in contrast to the right to petition the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the enforcement of
fundamental rights.

 The person confined or detained illegally.

 The person who is aware of the benefit of the case.
 The person who is familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case and willingly files an
application of the writ of habeas corpus under article 32 and 226 of the Indian constitution.

When Habeas Corpus Does Not Lie -

A court will reject a writ of habeas corpus in the following circumstances when the subject or target of the
petition for habeas corpus is outside the court's territorial jurisdiction when a person is imprisoned or detained
in conformity with a judgement made by a court of law or by a legal authority.

The following conditions when the writ of habeas corpus is refused are as follows:

 When the court doesn’t have the territorial jurisdiction over the detainer.
 When the detention of a person is connected with the order of the court.
 When the person detained is already set free.
 When the confinement has been legitimized by the removal of the defects.
 The writ of habeas corpus will not be available during an emergency.
 When the competent court dismisses the petition on the grounds of merits.
CASES RELATED TO HABEAS CORPUS:

In the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980 AIR 1579), a co-convict wrote a letter to the Supreme
Court requesting action against the mistreatment of the convicts. The Supreme Court took up this letter and
issued the writ of habeas corpus, indicating that it might be used to prevent the prisoner from being unlawfully
detained as well as to protect him from any abuse or inhumane treatment on the part of the detaining authorities.

In the case of Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate Darjeeling &Ors. (1974 AIR 510), the Supreme Court
decided that rather than focusing on the definition of Habeas Corpus, which is to produce the body, the legality
of the detention should be evaluated by taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. It was noted
that this petition was procedural in nature rather than substantive. In this case, questions arose regarding the
intent and scope of the habeas corpus writ.

Additional district magistrate of Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla 1976 SC 1207

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 centre 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.

A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras

In this instance, 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 accepts or rejects an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the applicant may appeal the decision to
the Supreme Court.

CONCLUSION:
It very well may be said that one such right that an individual has is the right to Writs. Since the Indian
constitution's provisions are authorized by law, the judiciary has autonomous command over the conditions
under which writs ought to be given. The motivation behind writs is to make it conceivable to decide a
singular's rights quickly away and to help that individual in getting the advantages of those freedoms.

The main writ an individual can use to declare their right to freedom is the writ of habeas corpus. It fills in as a
restorative activity that guarantees the confined individual is set free from the unlawful detainment.
Notwithstanding, it doesn't set anybody free from their obligation. It requests a genuine justification behind the
detainment and prepares for any type of abuse or segregation with respect to the confining power. Along these
lines, the legal executive is really using this writ to guarantee that an individual is safeguarded against unlawful
confinement.