The writ of habeas corpus has always been looked upon as an effective means to ensure release of the detained person from the prison. It must be emphasized that the primary purpose of the writ is & was to inquire into the legality of the detention .However, even when writ of habeas corpus is issued, it does not automatically exonerate the detained person from liability. It merely ensures his release from the prison and it does not have any bearing on his guilt or otherwise.
This writ has been frequently used in a number of cases by various courts. For instance, in Sommersetts case 2, writ of habeas corpus was issued to secure the release of slaves from an illegal detention. In Ex.P. Daisy Hopkins 3, writ of habeas corpus was used to release a young lady who had been detained by the Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University to a local prison known as the Spinning House for walking in the streets with a member of the University. Therefore writ of habeas corpus goes a long way in providing an effective remedy in case of unjustified detention by the detaining authority.
The Indian judiciary in a catena of cases has effectively resorted to the writ of habeas corpus mainly in order to secure release of a person from illegal detention. Personal liberty has always been considered a cherished value in India & the writ of habeas corpus protects that personal liberty in case of illegal arrest or detention. As personal liberty is so important, the judiciary has dispensed with the traditional doctrine of locus standi. Hence if a detained person is not in a position to file a petition, it can be moved on his behalf by any other person. The judiciary while going one step further, has also dispensed with strict rules of pleadings. The increasing scope of writ of habeas corpus may be explained with the help of following cases decided by the Indian judiciary.
In Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate 4, while enunciating the real scope of writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court opined that while dealing with a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the court may examine the legality of the detention without requiring the person detained to be produced before it.
In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra 5, while relaxing the traditional doctrine of locus standi, the apex court held that if the detained person is unable to pray for the writ of habeas corpus, someone else may pray for such writ on his behalf.
In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa 6, the Orissa police took away the son of the petitioner for the purposes of interrogation & he could not be traced. During the pendency of the petition, his dead body was found on railway track The petitioner was awarded compensation of Rs. 1, 50, 000.
In Malkiat Singh v. State of U.P 7, the son of a person was allegedly kept in illegal custody by the police officers. It was established that the son was killed in an encounter with the police. The court awarded Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation to the petitioner.
Conclusion: In this manner, writ of habeas corpus has been used effectively by the judiciary for protecting personal liberty by securing the release of a person from illegal custody
1.R.F.V.Heuston, Essays In Constitutional Law, Universal, 2nd Edn. (1999), p.108
2 (1772) 20 St.Tr.1
3 (1891) 61 L.J.Q.B. 240
4 AIR 1973 SC 2684.
5 AIR 1983 SC 378
6 AIR 1993 SC 1960
7 AIR 1999 SC 1522
How To Submit Your Article:
Follow the Procedure Below To Submit Your Articles
Submit your Article by using our online form
Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept Articles Already Published in other websites.
For Further Details Contact: [email protected]
Articles of YesteryearsClick on the link Below to check articles submitted in previous years:
Latest Articles - Law Articles 2017 - Law Articles 2016 - Law Articles 2015 - Law Articles 2014 - Law Articles 2013 - Law Articles 2012 - Law Articles 2011 - Law Articles 2010 - Law Articles 2009 - Law Articles 2008 - Articles 2007 - Law Articles 2006 - Law Articles 2000-05 - Archive
File Your Copyright - Right Now!
Lawyers in India - Search By City