Habeas Corpus


Article
32 of the Indian Constitution gives the right to the people of India to move to the
Supreme Court directly. As a result of the violation of their Fundamental Rights,
citizens of India may file a petition to the apex court of the country. For this
purpose, the citizens of the country may not necessarily approach high courts
or any other court. Under article 32 of the Constitution, a writ petition can
be filed in the Supreme Court; however, this petition can only be moved for
judgment if the petitioner can prove that his or her fundamental right has been
violated.


A
petitioner can file five types of writ petitions, such as Habeas Corpus,
Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition and Quo-Warranto.


In
this article, we will discuss the concept of Habeas Corpus, and relevant cases or writ petitions related to
this.







Origin and meaning



The
term Habeas Corpus is a Latin term, that means “may you have the body” or
“produce the body” before a court. In other words, the meaning of this term is
to produce a person before a court of justice. This can be understood as an
order made by a court to a person, who has the obligation to produce a person
to that court. 


Concept



From
the meaning, it is clear that the writ Habeas
Corpus is a court order. Here, this court order is made to a public
officer, who has detained a person intending to examine the legality of such
detention. Due to this reason, this writ is a prompt remedy against any illegal
detention or releasing a person from any illegal detention. If such a person,
who has been detained illegally is unable to move to the court, his relatives
or friends can file a petition on behalf of that person.


The
writ of Habeas Corpus may be issued
against authority or any person, who has illegally detained a person. The
court may also award monetary compensation to the person detained or arrested
illegally by any authority of a public officer. In this context, it is also to
be noted here that the person, against whom the writ of Habeas Corpus is issued must obey the order of the court. If that
person refuses to obey the order of the court, it would amount to contempt of
court.  


Relevant cases



Case 1: Rudal Shah v/s State of
Bihar, 1983


This
case was a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the State of Bihar
against illegal detention. After 14 years of detention, he was released as a
result of a PIL. He was given Rs. 35,000 by way of compensation.


Case 2: A.D.M.Jabalbur v. Shivakant
Shukla, 1976

In this case the
Supreme Court held that during the emergency, the fundamental rights are suspended
and due to this, no person has the right to move to the court for a writ of
Habeas Corpus.














Source


Supremecourtcases