Tag: Habeas Corpus

Prison torture

Kaushik, a ‘lifer’ (to use jail jargon), now lodged in the Tihar Central Jail, has moved this quasi-habeas corpus petition wherein he bitterly complains with fActs and figures, of the terror and horror, physical and psychic, let loose on him and other jail-mates by a cryptocriminal combination of senior officials and superior prisoners, thereby making the prison life within that walled world such a trauma and torment the law never meant under the sentence suffered at the hands of the court.

Icchu Devi Choraria Vs Union of India and others- 09/09/1980

Habeas corpus-Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 32 and 22(5)—Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974—Section 3(3)— It is also necessary to point out that in case of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the practice evolved by this Court is not to follow strict rules of pleading nor place undue emphasis on the question as to on whom the burden of proof lies. Even a postcard written by a detenu from jail has been sufficient to activise this Court into examining the legality of detention—Once the rule is issued it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been scrupulously observed and the citizen is not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law.

Tejaswini Gaud and Others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Others – 06/05/19

Custody of the Child given to the father – Writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release from an illegal or improper detention. The writ also extends its influence to restore the custody of a minor to his guardian when wrongfully deprived of it. The detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody is treated as equivalent to illegal detention for the purpose of granting writ, directing custody of the minor child.

RUDUL SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

It is true that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of Courts, Civil and Criminal. A money claim has therefore to be agitated in and adjudicated upon in a suit instituted in a court of lowest grade competent to try it. But the important question for our consideration is whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right. The instant cave is illustrative of such cases.

A second writ petition for issuing a writ of habeas corpus is barred by principles of res judicata.

The doctrine of res judicata may not apply in case a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is filed before this Court after disposal of a habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court. However, it is not possible to re-approach the High Court for the same relief by filing a fresh writ petition for the reason that it would be difficult for the High Court to set aside the order made by another Bench of the same court.

State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee 5/11/2020

September 05, 2018-ILLEGAL ARREST-Habeas corpus-whether a writ of habeas corpus could be maintained in respect of a person who is in police custody pursuant to a remand order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with the offence under investigation, this issue has been considered in the case of Saurabh Kumar through his father Vs. Jailor, Koneila Jail and Anr., 1 and Manubhai Ratilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.2 It is no more res integra. The Respondent ought to have filed a Revision against the Order of remand than to file a Habeas Corpus to challenge the Arrest-APPEAL ALLOWED-RESPONDENT REARRESTED

Sarita Sharma Vs Sushil Sharma -16/02/2000

It will not be proper to be guided entirely by the fact that the appellant Sarita had removed the children from U.S.A. despite the order of the Court of that country. So also, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree passed by the American Court though a relevant factor, cannot override the consideration of welfare of the minor children.

Habeas corpus writ

Latin, meaning “you have the body.” A writ of habeas corpus generally is a judicial order forcing law enforcement authorities to produce a prisoner they are holding, and to justify the prisoner’s […]