WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS AND
JUDICATURE OF
COURT
NAME: LOKESH RAJ
SAKSHI JAISWAL
What is the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
◦ Word HABEAS CORPUS means to have a body.
◦ A writ of habeas corpus is in the nature of an order upon the person who has
detained another to produce the latter before the court, in order to let the court
know on what ground he has been confined and set him free if there is no legal
justification for the imprisonment.
◦ The writ of habeas corpus primarily acts as a writ of inquiry, issued to test the
reasons or grounds for restraint and detention. The writ thus stands as a
safeguard against imprisonment of those held in violation of the law, by
ordering the responsible enforcement authorities to provide valid reasons for
the detention.
Writ of Habeas Corpus is used for:-
◦ an adequate basis for detention
◦ removal to another federal district court
◦ the denial of bail or parole
◦ a claim of double jeopardy
◦ the failure to provide for a speedy trial or hearing
◦ the legality of extradition to a foreign country.
Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141

◦ Rudul Shah’s case is a landmark judgment in the jurisprudence of state liability. It is considered
particularly important as it led to the emergence of compensatory jurisprudence for the violation of
fundamental rights under the Constitution.
◦ This was the first case since the inception of the Supreme Court that awarded monetary compensation to
a person for the violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The grant of such
monetary compensation was in addition, and not to the exclusion, to the right of the aggrieved person to
bring an action for damages in civil law or in tort.
◦ It became clear that the scope had become significantly wider. Since economic and social rights are often
considered by the Supreme Court under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution, compensation as a
constitutional remedy may be available for violations of these rights.
◦ This case gave judiciary a vast area to research over Article 21.
ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2
SCC 521
◦ The Hon’ble Supreme Court for this situation watched that Article 21 covers Right to Life and personal
liberty against its unlawful dispossession by the State and if there should arise an occurrence of
suspension of Article 21 by Emergency under Article 359, the Court can’t scrutinize the expert or
lawfulness of such State’s choice.
◦ Court also held that “In view of the Presidential order dated 27 June 1975 no person has any locus standi
to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or
order or direction to challenge the legality of an, order of detention on the ground that the order is not
under or in compliance with the Act or is illegal or is vitiated by mala-fides factual or legal or is based on
extraneous consideration.
◦ The case became famous during the Emergency period for safeguard of Fundamental right of Right to
life and was also known as Habeas Corpus. The case also overruled many previous landmark cases with
respect to Article 21 and use of writ of Habeas Corpus.