Adblocker detected! Please consider reading this notice.

We've detected that you are using AdBlock Plus or some other adblocking software which is preventing the page from fully loading.

We need money to operate the site, and almost all of it comes from our online advertising.

Please add lawcorner.in to your ad blocking whitelist or disable your adblocking software.

×

Explain The Writ Of Habeas Corpus Under Constitution Of India

Writ of Habeas Corpus

The supreme court stands for the protection of the fundamental rights of citizens. for that, it has a lot of real and board powers. It enforce five types of rights to enforce the fundamental rights to citizens.

There are 5 types of writs

  1. Habeas Corpus
  2. Mandamus
  3. Prohibition
  4. Certiorari
  5. Quo-Warranto

Club members must go through the one-by-one complaint structure and understand the UPS submission as well as all such UPS prelims and important.

In many countries, authorities may take detained citizens without the support of the law. The detainees had no protest, legal support or challenge the imprisonment. The U.S constitution seek to prohibit such abuse of power in the united states. That is way a special provision in the constitution was introduced to protect the right of the people known as the habeas corpus. Habeas Corpus is a Latin word, this word meaning “you may have the body”. The purpose of this writ is to bring the imprisoned person to court and to state the honest reason for their detention, by these writ the body is meant to be present.

Habeas corpus has deep roots in English common law. Thus the main object of the Writ is to give quick and immediate remedy to a person who is unlawfully detained by the person whether in person or private custody.

Currently, the Habeas Corpus used as a remedy for federal prisoners in the states. Other aspect of the habeas corpus include cases such as deportation, military detention, court proceedings before military commissions, and military court sentence.

The habeas corpus helps to determine certain aspects of criminal cases,

  1. Sufficient groups for detention.
  2. Transfer to another federal district court.
  3. Denial of bail or people.
  4. Dual accident claim. or
  5. The legality of the transfer to a foreign country.

The writ serves as a precautionary measure against imprisonment for violators, directing the responsible enforcement authorities to give valid reasons for detention, and therefore the writ is designation to provide immediate relief from an illegal impeachment. The writ uncorrupt serves as a procedural tool to protect the liberties of the individual against unrestricted and unlawful state action, thereby subjecting executive, judicial or other governmental restrictions on individual liberty to judicial scrutiny.

The writ of habeas corpus and does not mean determining a prisoner’s guilt or innocence but merely examining the legality of a prisoner’s current detention. In other words, the writ of habeas corpus acts only to examine the defects in the jurisdiction that deprive the individual of the legal power to detain, and the review of court examines only the power and authorities of the government to detain the individual and does not review the accuracy of the authorities, determination to detain the individual. Although it is writ of release from custody when illegally detained, the administration of the habeas corpus has some limitations.

For example, circuit priorities cannot modify or sharpen a general principle or supreme court habeas corpus jurisprudence.

Furthermore, based on the habeas corpus review of the death penalty, the law in force prior to the execution applies to the death penalty, and the new rules of constitutional interpretation announced after the defendant’s sentencing cannot be applied in advance in habeas corpus cases.

There are only two rare exceptions to this general rule of retroactivity;

  1. When a subsequent decision in placed outside the scope of a criminal law that punishes a particular behavior or defendant.
  2. When the subsequence decision recognizes a fundamental procedural right, it will substantially affect the likelihood of an accurate conviction.

The judge may reassure the inmates about the disclosure of evidence;

  1. Release from prison.
  2. Lack of sentence
  3. Order terminating the illegal provisions of imprisonment, or Declaration of right.

Do no include the habeas corpus with the right to direct appeal, as criminal defendants always have the power of appeal a conviction or sentence that will review the judgment of the trial judge. The habeas corpus offers a unique opportunity to challenge in prison, It is used only after direct appeal has failed. This is the last resort of prisoners who claim that abortion of justice has taken place.

Under no circumstance can we claim a habeas corpus writ, we receive habeas corpus petitions every year, and state and federal court are allowed to hear habeas corpus application.

Writ of Mandamus

The word mandamus means ‘we command’. This writ court is used to order a public servant who has failed in his duty or refused to perform his duty to resume his work. In addition to public officials, the mandamus can be used for the same purpose against any public institution, a corporation, a lower court, a tribunal, or a government.

Writ of Prohibition

‘prohibit’ means ‘Forbid’. A court higher in position issues a restraining order against another court, and the second is less in position to prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction or seizing some kind of jurisdiction it does not hold. This  leads to inactivity.

Writ of Certiorari

The word ‘certiorari’ means ‘to be attested’ or ‘to be informed’. A court with jurisdiction over this writ will refer it to a lower court to tribunal. It is mostly under for jurisdiction or due to an error in the law. It not only prevent but also corrects mistake of the judiciary.

Writ of Quo-Warranto

Quo-Warranto means ‘by any authority or warrant’. It is used by the supreme Court or the high court to prevent from illegally seizing public office. The court is investigating the legitimacy of an individual’s claim to a public office of this writ.

Case Laws

Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court held that “the celebrated Writ of Habeas Corpus has been described as ‘a great constitutional privilege of the citizen’ or ‘the first security of civil liberty.” Undoubtedly, the remedy available under Habeas Corpus jurisdiction is a very strong tool made available by our Constitution for protection of the right to live with dignity and against illegal detentions, but can that constitutional remedy be allowed to be exercised to circumvent the process of law prescribed by the Code of Criminal, can a judicial order of custody be challenged by way of a writ of habeas corpus.

B. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Orissa (1972)

The Supreme Court held that a writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be granted where a person is committed to jail custody by a competent court by judicial order.

Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat

This Court has held that “it is a well-accepted principle that a writ of Habeas Corpus is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody or police custody by the competent court by an order having jurisdiction”

Saurabh Kumar v. Jailor, Koneila Jail, the apex court court said that the writ of Habeas Corpus in case of custody pursuant to order of remand by a competent court is totally misplaced.

The court further held that even in respect of an illegal order of remand, which was passed mechanically in a cavalier fashion, the remedy of a writ of Habeas Corpus was not found to be an appropriate remedy. The remedy lies in filing a bail application.

State of Maharashtra v. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiqui

the Supreme Court has held that the question as to 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 is no more res integral. No writ of Habeas Corpus can be issued in such cases as it cannot be termed as a case of illegal detention when the incumbent was in judicial custody by a virtue of the order of the competent court. The Supreme Court further held that the question of whether the initial order of arrest itself was valid or not, does not anymore remain of any relevance in view of a subsequent judicial order of remand, be it for police custody or judicial custody, and a challenge to such order which is a judicial function cannot be entertained in a Habeas Corpus petition.

Boumediene v. bush (2008)

The supreme court struck down the Military Commission Act of 2006, which had barred foreign enemy combatant held by the united states from challenging their detention in federal courts.

 Mahesh Chand v. the State of Rajasthan

The Supreme Court held that the law is now well settled that if the detention is illegal, the remedy is not the bail but a petition for Habeas Corpus.

Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate

The Supreme Court held that the habeas corpus was essentially a procedural writ dealing with the machinery of justice. The object underlying the writ was to secure the release of a person who is illegally deprived of his liberty. The writ declared the court is a command addressed to the person who is alleged to have another person unlawfully in his custody, requiring him to bring the body of such person before the court in order that the circumstances of the detention maybe enquired into and an appropriate judgment rendered upon a judicial inquiry into the alleged unlawful restraint.

This Article is Written by MAURYA SURENDRAN, 3rd Year BB.A L.L.B Student at Nehru Academy of Law, Lakkidi, Palakkadu, Kerala.

Note – The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. We try our level best to avoid any misinformation or abusive content. If you found any of such content on this website, please report us at info@lawcorner.in

Interested to publish your article on our website? Click Here to submit your article.

Law Corner

Leave a Comment