Writ of Habeas Corpus

Writ of Habeas Corpus
Nature and scope of writ of habeas corpus
Habeas corpus means 'you may have the body' or 'produce body' before: the Court. The object
of this writ is to release a person who is illegally detained. It secures the release of a person
from illegal detention either in prison or in private custody. According to law no person shall
be detained unlawfully. The Court can direct to have the body of the person detained to be
brought before it in order to ascertain whether the detention is legal or illegal. It can be issued
against any private person or executive authority. The disobedience of this writ amounts to
contempt of Court, which is punishable.
For example, if a person who is arrested is not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours
from the time of arrest, he will be entitled to be released on the writ of habeas corpus.
According to the Halsbury, Laws of England, the writ of habeas corpus makes it a writ of the
highest Constitutional importance being a remedy available to the lowliest citizen against the
most powerful authority. Further, the writ of habeas corpus is the key that unlocks the door to
freedom, as stated by M.C. Setalvad in in work 'the Common Law in India'
Conditions for issue of writ of habeas corpus
1. There must be illegal detention of a person

2. Detention must be illegal at the time of filing petition
3. The detention must be unwarranted by law
Who can apply writ of habeas corpus?

1. A person who has been detained illegally
2. A prisoner himself whose detention is illegal or
3. Any person on behalf of the prisoner.
When writ of habeas corpus is not issued?

1. If the detention is made in accordance with law
2. Where the person against whom the writ is issued or the person who is detained is not
within the jurisdiction of the Court
3. To secure the release of a person who has been imprisoned by a Court on a criminal
charge
4. To interfere with a proceeding for contempt by a Court of record or by Parliament
ADM Jabalpur v. S. Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207, This is popularly known as 'Habeas Corpus
Case it has been held that if the enforcement of Article 21 is suspended by the Presidential
Order under Article 359, the detenue shall not lave right to file a writ petition for challenging
the legality of detention. After 44* amendment of the Constitution of India the rule passed in
Habeas Corpus Case is no longer a good law. According to present position even the
Presidential Order cannot suspend right to life and liberty under Article 21.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1575, the Court imposed punishment of
solitary confinement on Sunil Batra and Charles Sobhraj, who were under sentence of death
was challenged as violative of Article 14,19,20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court
treated their letter as writ petition. It has been held that writ of habeas corpus can not only be
granted for releasing a person illegally detained but also it will be also used for protecting him
from treatment inside jails.
Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141, the Court awarded & 30,000 as
compensation to Rudal Shah who was detained in jail for 14 years even after his acquittal. It
has been held that the Court has power to award monetary compensation for violation of
constitutional rights of the to citizens ppropriate cases.
Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling, AIR 1974 SC 510, Kanu Sanyal, a top
ranking Naxalite leader was arrested and detained without trial in Visakhapatnam jail. He
challenged the validity of his detention and filed a writ of habeas corpus. The Court issued
necessary directions and held that the production of the body of the person detained before the
Court was not necessary for hearing and disposing of the writ petition under Article 32. Bhim
Singh v. State of J&K, 1986 SC 494, Bhim Singh, an MLA of State ofJ&K was wrongfully
arrested and detained in the police station and was prevented from attending the State
Legislative Assembly. The Court awarded a sum of * 50,000 to the Petitioner as compensation
for the violation of his constitutional right of personal liberty under Article 21.
Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India and Others, (2015) 43 SCD 158, the question arose as
to how much compensation shall be paid to the acid attack victims. The Court held in peculiar
facts of the case, we are of the view that victim Chanchal deserves to be awarded a
compensation more than what has been prescribed by the Court in the Laxmi's case. It is to be
noted that the Court in Laxmi's case doesn't put a bar on the Government to award
compensation limited to 7 3,00,000. The State has the discretion to provide more compensation
to the victim in the case of acid attack as per Laxmi's case guidelines.
Cherukuri Mani W/o Narendra Chowdari v. The Chief Secretary, Government of

Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2014) 41 SCD 522, it has been observed that normally, a
person who is detained under the provisions of the Act is without facing trial which in other
words amounts to curtailment of his liberties and denial of civil rights. In such cases, whether
continuous detention of such person is necessary or not, is to be assessed and reviewed from
time to time. Taking into consideration these factors, the legislature has specifically provided
the mechanism 'Advisory Board' to review the detention of a person. Passing a detention order
for a period of twelve months at a stretch, without proper review, is deterrent to the rights of
the detenu. Hence, the impugned Government Order directing detention for the maximum
period of twelve months straightaway cannot be sustained in law.

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Nature and scope of writ of habeas corpus

Conditions for issue of writ of habeas corpus

1. There must be illegal detention of a person

Who can apply writ of habeas corpus?

When writ of habeas corpus is not issued?

Cherukuri Mani W/o Narendra Chowdari v. The Chief Secretary, Government of

You might also like