Habeas Corpus: Meaning, Case Laws, Limitations

SHARE:

The Writ of Habeas Corpus, derived from Latin meaning "you may have the body," is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not they should be released from custody. The writ represents one of the most important rights in any democratic society because it provides a critical check on the arbitrary detention and abuse of power by the state.

Key Features of Habeas Corpus:

Legal Right Against Unlawful Detention: The primary function of habeas corpus is to release individuals from unlawful detention. If a person is detained without sufficient cause or legal justification, they or someone on their behalf can file a petition for habeas corpus.

Speedy Remedy: Ideally, habeas corpus proceedings are swift. The essence of this writ is its promptness, providing immediate relief from unlawful detention.

Universal Jurisdiction: The writ can be issued against any public official or government authority detaining a person. It is not limited by the location of the detainee within the country.

Protection of Liberty: Habeas corpus is a fundamental aspect of the protection of individual freedom against arbitrary state action. It ensures that no one is deprived of their liberty without due process of law.

Habeas Corpus: Meaning, Case Laws, Limitations

Habeas Corpus Meaning

In Indian law, the writ of Habeas Corpus is a critical mechanism for protecting individuals' freedom against arbitrary and unlawful detention. Embedded within the framework of the Constitution of India, it empowers both the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue directions, orders, or writs, including Habeas Corpus, for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III (Fundamental Rights).

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution grants the right to individuals to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III. The Supreme Court can issue directions or orders, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to enforce these rights.

Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue directions, orders, or writs, including those in the nature of habeas corpus, to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within their territorial jurisdictions. This provision is broader in scope compared to Article 32 because it can be used not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but for any other purpose as well.

The writ of Habeas Corpus is one of the most important and fundamental instruments for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action. The term "Habeas Corpus" is derived from the Latin phrase that means "You shall have the body." It is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody.

Significance of Habeas Corpus

The writ of Habeas Corpus is often described as the "great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement," being a potent safeguard against arbitrary or unlawful detention.

It can be issued against both public authorities and individuals. For instance, in cases of illegal detention by state authorities or wrongful confinement by private individuals.

During the proclamation of an emergency under Article 359 of the Constitution, the right to move any court for the enforcement of rights conferred by Part III (including the right to move for Habeas Corpus) can be suspended. However, this suspension has been subject to criticism and judicial scrutiny to ensure it is not misused.

Indian courts have often taken a proactive stance in utilizing the writ of Habeas Corpus to protect personal liberty. Courts have interpreted the scope of this writ broadly, encompassing various situations of detention that might not strictly fall under traditional categories.

Use of Habeas Corpus Writ in Indian Law

In Indian law, you can use the writ of Habeas Corpus in several circumstances where an individual's liberty is believed to be unlawfully curtailed. This writ is a powerful tool for protecting personal freedom against arbitrary detention by the state or by private individuals. Here are some of the common scenarios where a Habeas Corpus writ can be used:

1. Illegal Detention

The most straightforward use of Habeas Corpus is when someone is detained without sufficient cause or legal justification. This includes detentions without an arrest warrant or detentions extending beyond the period allowed by law without being produced before a magistrate.

2. Detention Without Proper Legal Procedure

If the detention does not follow the proper legal procedure or violates the fundamental rights of the detainee, a Habeas Corpus petition can be filed. For example, if the detainee has not been informed of the grounds of arrest as required by law, or if the detainee is denied the right to consult a legal practitioner of their choice.

3. Excessive and Prolonged Detention

Detentions that exceed the stipulated time frame without trial or without being formally charged can be challenged through Habeas Corpus. The judiciary can order the detainee's release if it finds the detention unjustifiably prolonged or the detention conditions inhumane.

4. Detention of Minors

In cases where minors are unlawfully detained or taken away from legal guardians without lawful justification, Habeas Corpus can be invoked to restore the minor to the custody of their legal guardian.

5. Preventive Detention

Even in cases of preventive detention, where individuals are detained to prevent them from committing potential future crimes, the legality of the detention can be challenged through Habeas Corpus, especially if the detention is arbitrary or lacks a valid basis under preventive detention laws.

6. Conditions of Detention

While primarily concerned with unlawful detention, Habeas Corpus can sometimes be extended to challenge the conditions under which individuals are detained, especially if those conditions amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

7. Missing Persons

In situations where a person has gone missing and there is a suspicion of illegal confinement by state authorities or private individuals, family members or friends can file a Habeas Corpus petition to compel the authorities to reveal the whereabouts of the missing person.

8. Enforcement of Custody Orders

Habeas Corpus can also be used in family law cases, for example, to enforce custody orders where one parent unlawfully detains or hides a child from the other parent in violation of a court order.

It is important to note that while Habeas Corpus is a powerful tool for protecting liberty, its success depends on the ability to prove the detention is unlawful or arbitrary. The Indian judiciary, both the Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, has wide discretion to issue this writ in the interest of justice.

History of Habeas Corpus

The writ of Habeas Corpus, often referred to as the "great writ of liberty," has a long and significant history that spans several centuries. Its origins can be traced back to the common law traditions of England, and over time, it has become a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary detention and a cornerstone of human rights law worldwide.

Origins in England

The term "Habeas Corpus" is derived from the Latin phrase "Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum," which means "you shall have the body to be subjected to examination." The writ's origins are not precisely dated, but it is believed to have been developed as a part of English common law in the 12th and 13th centuries. The writ was a means for the court to demand that a detainee be brought before it so that the legality of the detention could be examined.

Magna Carta 1215

The principle that no person could be detained unlawfully without being charged or tried was implied in the Magna Carta of 1215, a foundational document in the development of English constitutional law. Although Habeas Corpus is not explicitly mentioned in the Magna Carta, Clause 39 set the groundwork for legal principles that would later be central to the Habeas Corpus concept.

Habeas Corpus Act 1679

The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 is often cited as a critical moment in the history of the writ. Passed by the British Parliament, this act formalized the procedure for the issuance of the writ and made it significantly harder for authorities to ignore or evade a Habeas Corpus order. The act was a response to abuses of power by the monarchy and the government, particularly under the reigns of Charles II and James II.

Expansion and Global Influence

The principles enshrined in the Habeas Corpus Act were subsequently adopted and adapted by other jurisdictions around the world, especially in countries influenced by British common law. The writ became an essential tool for the protection of individual liberty against arbitrary state action.

United States

In the United States, the writ of Habeas Corpus is enshrined in the Constitution, reflecting its importance as a fundamental right. Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that "The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Throughout American history, the writ has played a crucial role in civil liberties, especially during times of war and national emergency.

India

In India, the writ of Habeas Corpus has been incorporated into the legal system through the Constitution of India. Articles 32 and 226 empower the Supreme Court and the High Courts, respectively, to issue writs of Habeas Corpus to protect individuals from unlawful detention. The Indian judiciary has actively used the writ to uphold personal liberty and freedom.

Modern Applications

Today, the writ of Habeas Corpus continues to serve as a critical check on the power of the state over individuals. It is a key mechanism through which unlawful detentions can be challenged in courts, ensuring the protection of personal liberty and human rights. The writ's history is a testament to the enduring importance of legal safeguards against arbitrary government action.

Habeas Corpus Case Laws

Landmark cases of Habeas Corpus in India have significantly shaped the legal landscape, particularly in the realm of personal liberty and state accountability. These cases highlight the judiciary's role in safeguarding individuals' rights against unlawful detention. Here are some notable examples:

1. ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976)

Citation: 1976 AIR 1207

Also Known As: The Habeas Corpus Case

The case of ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla, commonly referred to as the Habeas Corpus case, is one of the most controversial judgments in the history of the Indian judiciary. Officially titled Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla, this case was decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1976, during the period of the Emergency declared by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

Background

The Emergency was declared on June 25, 1975, under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution, due to perceived threats to national security and democracy. Following the declaration, fundamental rights, including the right to move any court to enforce the rights conferred by Part III of the Indian Constitution (which covers fundamental rights), were suspended. This led to widespread detentions of political leaders, activists, and others who were considered threats to the government.

The case arose when several detainees under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) sought to challenge their detention by filing habeas corpus petitions in High Courts across the country. The government argued that in light of the Presidential Order dated June 27, 1975, which declared that the right of any person, including a detainee, to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution would remain suspended for the duration of the Emergency, the detainees had no legal basis to challenge their detention.

The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether an individual’s right to not be unlawfully detained (a right under Article 21) could be suspended even if the Presidential Order was in effect.

Judgment

In a 4-1 majority, the Supreme Court held that in light of the Presidential Order of June 27, 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 grounds 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 considerations.

Justice H.R. Khanna was the lone dissenter, asserting that the Constitution did not confer upon any authority the power to detain a person without the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, even during the state of emergency.

The ADM Jabalpur case is often cited as a low point in the history of the Indian judiciary, where the court failed to protect fundamental rights and uphold personal liberty against executive excesses. However, this judgment has been widely criticized and was effectively overruled by the Supreme Court in later years, notably in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2017), where the right to privacy was declared to be protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The ADM Jabalpur case remains a cautionary tale about the fragility of democratic freedoms and the vital role of the judiciary in defending them.

2. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978)

Citation: 1978 AIR 597

The case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978 is a landmark judgment in the annals of Indian constitutional law, significantly expanding the scope and interpretation of fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. This case is often cited for its broad, liberal interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as for laying down the foundation for the concept of procedural due process in India.

Background

The case originated when Maneka Gandhi, a journalist and the daughter-in-law of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was issued a notice by the Regional Passport Office, New Delhi, in July 1977, informing her that her passport, issued in June 1976, was being impounded "in the interests of the general public." Gandhi was asked to surrender her passport within seven days of receiving the notice. When she asked for the reasons behind the impoundment, she was informed that the government had decided not to furnish any.

Maneka Gandhi filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the order on several grounds, including the violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.), and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

Judgment

The Supreme Court's judgment in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India was groundbreaking for several reasons:

Article 21 and Personal Liberty: The Court held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing but includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it. Thus, the Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include a variety of rights that make life meaningful.

Procedure Established by Law vs. Due Process: Prior to this judgment, the interpretation of Article 21 allowed the deprivation of life and personal liberty by any law, as long as there was a procedure, no matter how arbitrary or unjust that procedure was. In Maneka Gandhi's case, the Supreme Court moved closer to the American doctrine of "due process of law," stating that the procedure established by law has to be fair, just, and not arbitrary.

Inter-relationship of Articles 14, 19, and 21: The Court also established the concept that the fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive and should be read together. Specifically, it held that any law which prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of "personal liberty" has to meet the requirements of Articles 14 and 19 as well, thus ensuring that the law is not arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable.

The Maneka Gandhi case marked a significant shift in the approach of the Indian judiciary towards the interpretation of fundamental rights, especially the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. It laid down the principle that the right to live is not confined to mere survival but includes the right to live with human dignity. This case has been cited in numerous subsequent judgments as a basis for expanding the scope of fundamental rights and has been instrumental in the development of constitutional law in India.

3. Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (1978)

Citation: 1978 AIR 1675

The case of Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (1978) is a landmark judgment in Indian legal history, particularly in the field of prison reforms and the rights of prisoners. This case, decided by the Supreme Court of India, marked a significant step towards the recognition and protection of the human rights of prisoners within the Indian legal framework.

Background

Sunil Batra, a death row inmate, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court of India, which was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. In his letter, Batra detailed the inhuman and degrading treatment meted out to prisoners, especially the practice of putting death row inmates in solitary confinement. He highlighted the case of another inmate who was subjected to solitary confinement and other forms of inhumane treatment.

The main legal issues addressed in this case were:

  • Whether and to what extent prisoners, including those on death row, are entitled to fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.
  • The legality of solitary confinement and the conditions under which it was being imposed on prisoners, especially those awaiting execution.

Judgment and Its Implications

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, made several important pronouncements:

Recognition of Prisoners' Rights: The Court affirmed that prisoners do not lose their fundamental rights, except to the extent that these rights are curtailed by the fact of incarceration. The Court emphasized that a prisoner retains all his fundamental rights except those he is deprived of by law, either expressly or by necessary implication.

Condemnation of Solitary Confinement: The Court held that the practice of solitary confinement prior to the execution of a death sentence was unconstitutional unless specifically authorized by law. It stated that solitary confinement of a prisoner, as was being practiced, was cruel and amounted to inhuman treatment, violating Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

Human Dignity of Prisoners: The judgment underscored the importance of treating prisoners with dignity, emphasizing that the essence of the Constitution does not stop at the prison gates. The Court observed that to compel a man to live in conditions where he cannot utilize the amenities for maintaining or improving his condition amounts to an infringement of his rights under Article 21.

Directions for Prison Reforms: The Court issued guidelines and directions to improve the conditions of prisons and ensure the humane treatment of inmates. This included directives on the treatment of undertrials, the provision of legal aid, and the necessity for speedy trials.

The Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration case was a watershed moment for the recognition of prisoners' rights in India. It played a crucial role in initiating a dialogue on prison reforms and emphasized the need for treating prisoners with dignity and respect for their fundamental rights. The judgment is a testament to the dynamic and humane interpretation of the Constitution by the Indian judiciary and serves as a cornerstone for numerous subsequent rulings related to the rights of prisoners and conditions in Indian jails.

4. D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997)

Citation: 1997 (1) SCC 416

The case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that laid down specific guidelines to prevent the abuse of power and protect individuals from custodial violence. This case has had a profound impact on the legal framework regarding arrests and detentions in India, emphasizing the protection of fundamental human rights.

Background

The case originated from a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India by D.K. Basu, the Executive Chairman of the Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, highlighting cases of police atrocities and custodial deaths in the state of West Bengal. Considering the grave issues raised in the letter, the Supreme Court treated it as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The petition brought to light the alarming rise in incidents of torture and deaths in police custody, raising serious questions about the protection of fundamental human rights guaranteed under Articles 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) and 22 (Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases) of the Constitution of India.

Judgment and Guidelines

In its landmark judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of protecting individuals from torture and abuse in police custody. It laid down comprehensive guidelines to be followed in all cases of arrest and detention to prevent torture and custodial deaths. Some of the key guidelines issued by the Court include:

Police Identification: The police officer carrying out the arrest must bear accurate, visible, and clear identification and name tags with their designations.

Memo of Arrest: A memo of arrest must be prepared at the time of arrest, which should include the time and date of arrest and be attested by at least one witness who may either be a family member of the person arrested or a respectable person from the locality. It must also be countersigned by the person arrested.

Notification to Family or Friend: The person arrested must be allowed to inform a friend, relative, or any other person interested in his welfare about the arrest and the place of detention as soon as practicable.

Right to be Examined by a Doctor: The person arrested should be examined by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned state or union territory, both at the time of arrest and every 48 hours during detention.

Right to Legal Representation: The detainee must be informed of the right to have a lawyer of their choice, as provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

Police Diary Entries: Details regarding the arrest and detention must be recorded in a diary at the place of detention.

Inspection by Magistrate: The implementation of these guidelines should be monitored by the State's District and Sessions Judge.

The D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal case is significant for its emphasis on the protection of personal liberty and prevention of torture in custody. The guidelines issued by the Supreme Court have become essential protocols for law enforcement agencies during arrests and detentions, aimed at ensuring accountability and safeguarding human rights. This judgment is a cornerstone in the fight against custodial violence and has been instrumental in promoting police reforms in India.

5. Jagdambika Pal vs. Union of India (1999)

Citation: 1999 (9) SCC 95

The case of Jagdambika Pal vs. Union of India (1999) is a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law, particularly in the context of the powers and responsibilities of the Governor in a state and the principle of democratic governance. This case is often referred to in discussions about the constitutional crisis and the role of the judiciary in resolving disputes related to the formation of state governments.

Background

The case arose from a political crisis in the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) in 1998. Jagdambika Pal was appointed as the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh for a brief period after the then Governor of UP, Romesh Bhandari, dismissed the government led by Kalyan Singh, claiming it had lost the majority. The Governor's action was based on the contentious political situation and shifting party loyalties within the state legislature.

The core issues before the Supreme Court were:

  • Whether the Governor's decision to dismiss a sitting Chief Minister, claiming loss of majority, without a floor test in the Legislative Assembly, was constitutional.
  • The appropriate mechanism to determine the majority of a government.

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, underscored the sanctity of the floor test in the legislative assembly as the most credible and democratic method to prove the majority of the government. The Court ordered an immediate floor test in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly to determine which party had the majority to form the government.

Key Points of the Judgment

Floor Test as a Democratic Principle: The Supreme Court emphasized that the floor test is the only conclusive way to ascertain the majority of a government in a parliamentary democracy. This principle upholds the democratic ethos and the mandate of the people.

Limitation of Governor's Powers: The judgment highlighted the limitations on the Governor's powers, indicating that the Governor cannot dismiss a government based on subjective assessments of its majority. Such a decision needs to be based on a floor test in the Legislative Assembly.

Reinforcement of Constitutional Norms: The case reinforced the constitutional norms and principles governing the functioning of parliamentary democracy in India, particularly the role of the Governor and the rights of elected legislatures.

The Supreme Court's intervention in the Jagdambika Pal case played a crucial role in resolving the constitutional crisis in Uttar Pradesh. By mandating a floor test, the Court upheld the principles of democracy and the constitutional mandate. This case serves as a precedent for resolving disputes related to the majority of state governments and underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the democratic fabric of the nation. The judgment is a testament to the checks and balances inherent in the Indian constitutional framework, ensuring that democratic principles are upheld over arbitrary decisions.

6. Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. & Ors. (2018)

Citation: (2018) 16 SCC 368

The case of Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. & Ors. (2018) is a significant judgment by the Supreme Court of India, touching upon critical issues of personal liberty, the right to marry a person of one's choice, and the concept of habeas corpus in the context of adult consensual relationships. This case is widely known as the Hadiya case, after the woman at the center of the dispute.

Background

The case involved Hadiya (born Akhila Ashokan), a Hindu woman who converted to Islam and married Shafin Jahan, a Muslim man, in December 2016. Hadiya's conversion and marriage became a matter of controversy, leading to allegations of forced conversion and what was described in media and political discourses as 'Love Jihad' — a term used to allege a conspiracy of forcefully converting non-Muslim women to Islam through marriage.

Hadiya's father, Asokan K.M., filed a habeas corpus petition in the Kerala High Court, claiming that his daughter was brainwashed and forcibly converted to Islam, and her marriage was a case of 'Love Jihad'. The Kerala High Court annulled the marriage, terming it a 'sham', and placed Hadiya in the custody of her parents, essentially treating her as a minor despite her being an adult.

Judgment

Shafin Jahan, the husband, appealed to the Supreme Court of India against the High Court's decision. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, set aside the Kerala High Court's order that annulled the marriage between Hadiya and Shafin Jahan. The apex court emphasized the importance of personal autonomy and the right of an adult individual to choose their life partner.

Key Points of the Judgment

Autonomy of an Individual: The Supreme Court underscored the autonomy of an individual to profess a religion of their choice and to marry a person of their choice. The court observed that societal approval for personal decisions is not a requirement for adults.

Invalidation of Marriage: The Supreme Court held that the High Court overstepped its boundaries by annulling the marriage, stating that a habeas corpus petition is not meant to adjudicate matrimonial disputes.

Consent and Adult Choice: The court reaffirmed that two consenting adults have the right to marry and live together without interference from the state or court, emphasizing the protection of individual freedom under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Role of Courts in Personal Decisions: The judgment highlighted that courts should not intervene in the personal decisions of consenting adults regarding marriage and religion, as long as these decisions do not contravene the law.

The Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. & Ors. (2018) case is a landmark judgment reinforcing the principles of personal liberty, freedom of choice in marriage, and the secular fabric of the Indian Constitution. It served as a reminder of the limitations of judicial intervention in matters of personal autonomy and the right of adults to make their own life choices. The case also addressed the sensitive issue of inter-faith marriages in India, underlining the constitutional protection afforded to individual freedoms against societal and parental interference.

Legal Scholar's Perspective on Habeas Corpus

Quotes from notable legal scholars and figures regarding habeas corpus, reflecting the importance attributed to it within the legal community:

Alexander Hamilton (Founding Father of the United States, co-author of The Federalist Papers) - Though not a modern legal scholar, Hamilton's words in Federalist No. 84 are often invoked in discussions about habeas corpus:

"The practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny."

Justice Anthony Kennedy (Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1988–2018) - In the context of the Guantanamo Bay detainees in Boumediene v. Bush (2008), Kennedy wrote:

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Erwin Chemerinsky (American constitutional law scholar and Dean of Berkeley Law) - Has written extensively on constitutional protections and rights, including habeas corpus:

"Habeas corpus is an essential mechanism in the United States Constitution that protects against the detention of individuals without sufficient cause or evidence."

Lord Steyn (Johan Steyn, Baron Steyn, a former Law Lord in the United Kingdom) - In a lecture delivered in 2002, remarked on the significance of habeas corpus in the context of the legal history of the UK and its influence on international norms:

"The writ of habeas corpus has been a cornerstone of individual liberty and an unrivaled safeguard against arbitrary detention."

Legal scholar William Blackstone describes the writ of Habeas Corpus as a:

"great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement."

These quotes, though from a mix of historical and contemporary figures, underline the enduring significance of habeas corpus across different legal systems and periods. They reflect the view that habeas corpus is not merely a legal procedure but a fundamental principle upholding individual freedom against state overreach.

Limitations of Habeas Corpus

The writ of habeas corpus is a critical instrument for safeguarding personal freedom by ensuring that no person is deprived of their liberty without due process. However, like any legal tool, it has certain limitations within the Indian legal system, some of which are inherent to the nature of habeas corpus and others that stem from statutory provisions or judicial interpretations.

Despite its protective nature, Habeas Corpus cannot be utilized under the following conditions:

  • When the detention is deemed lawful and adheres to legal procedures.
  • In cases where detention results from contempt of court proceedings.
  • When the court lacks jurisdiction over the detention matter.
  • If the detention is authorized by a competent court within its legal capacity.

This writ, with its historical significance and protective essence, stands as a cornerstone in upholding individual liberties against unjust confinement.

National Security and Preventive Detention: The Indian Constitution allows for preventive detention in certain cases, where individuals can be detained without trial for specific periods if it's believed that they might act against the interests of the state or public order. The scope of habeas corpus can be limited in these cases, especially under laws like the National Security Act, where the grounds of detention might not be fully disclosed to the detainee.

Suspension During Emergency: Article 359 of the Indian Constitution permits the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III (Fundamental Rights) during a proclaimed emergency. This means that the enforcement of habeas corpus can be suspended, limiting its availability as a remedy for unlawful detention during those times. Notably, this provision was controversially used during the Emergency period (1975-1977).

Procedural Limitations: The effectiveness of habeas corpus can also be hampered by procedural delays and the backlog of cases in Indian courts. Although the writ is meant to provide speedy relief against unlawful detention, in practice, the adjudication process can be slow, undermining the promptness that is crucial for the effectiveness of habeas corpus.

Limited to Physical Detention: Habeas corpus in India is primarily concerned with physical detention. This means its utility is limited in scenarios involving non-physical or constructive restraints on liberty, such as electronic monitoring or other forms of surveillance and control that do not constitute physical custody.

Judicial Discretion: The issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is subject to judicial discretion. The courts may deny the writ if they find the detention to be lawful, or if they believe that there is no merit in the application. This discretion, while necessary, can sometimes lead to inconsistencies in the application of habeas corpus.

Issues with Enforcement: Even when a court orders the release of a detainee through a habeas corpus writ, there can be challenges in the enforcement of such orders, especially if there is resistance from the detaining authorities or if the detainee is held in a remote or inaccessible location.

Despite these limitations, the writ of habeas corpus remains a powerful tool for the protection of personal liberty in India. The judiciary has often interpreted the scope of habeas corpus broadly, reinforcing its status as a fundamental right and a crucial check on arbitrary state power.

Habeas Corpus Case Example

An illustrative example of the use of habeas corpus involves a case where an individual, let's call him John Doe, is arrested and detained by law enforcement officials without being charged with a crime or brought before a court within a reasonable period. Suppose that John Doe's detention continues without any formal charges or presentation before a judicial authority to justify the legality of his detention. Concerned about the legality of his detention and the apparent violation of his rights, John Doe, or someone on his behalf, such as a family member or a lawyer, decides to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a competent court.

Filing the Petition:

The petition for habeas corpus is filed in a higher court, such as a High Court or the Supreme Court, depending on the jurisdiction. The petition argues that John Doe's detention is unlawful because it lacks legal justification, and it violates his fundamental rights, including the right to liberty and the right to be presented before a judge within a reasonable period.

Court Proceedings:

Upon receiving the habeas corpus petition, the court promptly schedules a hearing. The government or the detaining authority is ordered to present John Doe in court and to provide a valid legal reason for his detention. The essence of the habeas corpus petition is to compel the state to justify the legality of the detention.

Possible Outcomes:

Detention Justified: If the government or detaining authority provides a valid legal basis for John Doe's detention (e.g., evidence of his involvement in criminal activities), and it is found that due process has been followed, the court may determine that the detention is lawful.

Detention Unlawful: If the court finds that there is no legal basis for John Doe's detention, or if his rights have been violated (e.g., he was not charged or presented before a court within a reasonable time), the court will order his immediate release.

Real-World Application:

A real-world example involves the case of Boumediene v. Bush (2008) in the United States, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that detainees at Guantanamo Bay had the right to file habeas corpus petitions to challenge their detention. The Court ruled that the procedures in place for reviewing the detainees' status were insufficient to satisfy the requirements of habeas corpus, thereby granting the detainees the right to have their cases heard in U.S. federal courts.

This example illustrates the crucial role of habeas corpus in upholding the rule of law and protecting individuals' rights against arbitrary detention by the state.

Habeas Corpus Act 1679

The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 is a landmark piece of legislation passed by the English Parliament during the reign of King Charles II. It is often recognized as one of the foundational legal instruments for the protection of individual liberties against arbitrary detention by the state. The act formalized the writ of habeas corpus, which had been a part of English common law for centuries, making it a more effective tool for safeguarding personal freedom.

The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 was enacted in a period of political instability and conflict between the monarchy and Parliament, marked by concerns over arbitrary arrest and detention. Prior to the Act, the right to habeas corpus was recognized, but its enforcement was inconsistent, and abuses by the crown or its officials were common.

Key Features and Provisions:

Issuance of Writ: The Act made it mandatory for courts to issue a writ of habeas corpus upon application by or on behalf of any person claiming to be unlawfully detained. The writ required the person detaining a prisoner to bring the detainee before a court or judge to determine the lawfulness of the detention.

Time Frame for Compliance: It specified strict time frames within which the writ had to be complied with, depending on the distance of the place of detention from the court.
Penalties for Non-Compliance: The Act imposed penalties on officials who refused to comply with the writ or failed to deliver it in a timely manner.

Protection Against Re-Arrest: One of the Act’s provisions protected individuals from being re-arrested on the same charges after they had been released by a habeas corpus order.
Bail: It allowed for the provision of bail for those detained, except in cases involving capital offenses.

The significance of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 lies in its reinforcement of the rule of law and the protection of individual liberty. By codifying the procedure for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus and ensuring that detainees had a legal mechanism to challenge unlawful detention, the Act became a cornerstone of democratic legal systems. It underscored the principle that no one could be detained arbitrarily without being given the opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention before a court.

The principles enshrined in the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 have had a profound influence on legal systems worldwide, inspiring similar protections in other jurisdictions, including the United States. The Act is often cited as a critical development in the history of legal protections for human rights and has contributed to the evolution of the concept of due process.

COMMENTS

Name

10th Pass Govt Job,7,125 crpc,1,12th Paas Jobs,3,138 Ni Act,1,2024 National Lok Adalat Schedule,1,3 Years LL.B Colleges in West Bengal,1,3 Years LLB Course in India,1,3 Years LLB Course in Kalyani University,1,3 Years LLB Govt Colleges in India,1,3D Designer,1,4 year bed course,1,AAI Junior Executive Recruitment 2024,1,Acts,15,Admission,43,Agniveer,1,AIAPGET 2024,1,AIBE Exam,1,Aibe exam language,1,Aibe exam pattern,1,Aibe exam syllabus,1,Air Force Agniveer,1,aligarh muslim university case,1,aligarh muslim university issue,1,Aligarh Muslim University Minority Status Case,1,aligarh muslim university minority status case analysis,1,All Indian Government Exams after Graduation,1,amazon,1,Amazon Jobs,1,amazon seller,1,Amazon Work From Home Jobs,1,Amazon Work From Home Jobs For Freshers,1,Amex Law College,1,Amex Law College Fees,1,AP Ed CET 2024,1,AP PGCET 2024,1,AP PGECET 2024,1,APLAWCET/ APPGLCET 2024,1,application form for gun license,1,Apprentice,6,Are CV resume and bio data the same,1,Arms,1,Arms Act 1959,1,Arms Rules,1,Army Jobs,1,Article 21,1,Ashneer Grover Net Worth,1,Bail in bailable offences,1,Bail in non-bailable offences,1,Bailable and Non Bailable Offences,1,Balfour v Balfour Case,1,Bank Job Vacancy 2024,2,Bank Jobs,4,Bankura District Court Recruitment,1,Basic Structure Doctrine,1,BBMP Group D Jobs,1,BCECE 2024,1,Beautician Courses,1,Bed,1,Bed Admission,2,BEL Recruitment 2024,1,Best Formal Reply for Thank You,1,Best Reply For Thank You For Every Situation,1,Best Reply For Thank You To A Boy,1,Best Reply For Thank You To A Girl,1,Bharat Ratna to Lal Krishna Advani,1,BharatGPT Hanooman AI,1,Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023,3,Bihar Bed,2,Bihar Bed CET Syllabus,1,Bihar Bed Entrance Exam,1,Bihar Bed Exam,1,Bihar Bed Exam Pattern,1,Bihar Bed syllabus,2,Bihar ITI CAT 2024,1,bilkis bano,1,Bilkis Bano case,1,bilkis bano case convicts,1,bilkis bano case news,1,bilkis bano gujarat,1,bilkis bano news,1,bilkis bano supreme court,1,Bills,2,Binoda Law College,1,Binoda Law College admission fees,1,Binoda Law College admission process,1,Binoda Law College eligibility,1,Binoda Law College seats,1,BioAsia Summit 2024,1,Biography,4,Blog writer job,1,Blogging,1,BNS,1,BOI Officer Recruitment 2024,1,BPSC,1,BPSC Agriculture Department Various Post Recruitment 2024,1,BPSC School Head teacher recruitment 2024,1,Brainware University,1,Brainware University llb fees,1,BSPHCL Recruitment 2024,1,Burdwan University,1,Burdwan University 3 Years LL.B Admission,1,Business,3,business tips,1,business without money,1,Byjus Online teaching job,2,caa,1,Calcutta University,3,Calcutta University BA LL.B admission,1,Calcutta University BA LLb,1,Calcutta University BA LLb exam pattern,1,Calcutta University BA LLb syllabus,1,Calcutta University BA LLB Total Seats,1,Career,8,Career in Law,3,career tips,1,Carrer,2,Cases Related to UCC,1,cash earning sites,1,CBSE 10th Syllabus,1,Central Govt Jobs,8,Central Govt Schemes,1,CG SET Exam,1,CG SET Exam date,1,CG SET Syllabus,2,CGPEB Hostel Superintendent Recruitment 2024,1,Chandigarh TGT Recruitment 2024,1,Chapter 1,1,Citizenship,1,Citizenship Amendment Act,1,Civil judge job,1,CJI D Y Chandrachud,1,CJI DY Chandrachud Highlighted Four Issues in Legal Profession,1,CLAT 2025,1,CLW Act Apprentice Recruitment,1,CMAT 2024,1,Combined Medical Services,1,common interview questions,1,Composition and Functions of the Supreme Court of India,1,Composition of Lok Adalat,1,Content Writer,4,Content Writer Job,3,Content Writing Jobs,4,Copy Paste Jobs,2,Copy Paste Jobs Without Investment,1,Courses,6,Cover Letter,1,Cover Letter for Freshers,1,Crimes,1,CTET July 2024,1,CTET Syllabus 2024,1,CUET UG 2024,1,Current Affairs,9,Cyber Cell of Police,1,daily earning website,1,Data Analyst,1,Data Analyst Interview Questions,1,Data Analyst Job,1,Data Analyst Job Qualifications and Skills,1,Data Analyst Jobs,1,Data Analytics Course,1,Data Entry Jobs,5,Data Entry Operator,1,Data Protection and Data Privacy Laws in India,1,data protection laws,1,Defence Jobs,1,Delhi University,2,difference,1,difference between a CV and a bio,1,Difference between Advocate Lawyer,1,Difference Between CV Resume and Bio Data,1,Difference Between I.P.C and Cr.PC,1,Difference between Judgment Decree and Order,1,Differences Between Democracy and Republic,1,Digital Marketing Courses,1,Digital Marketing Jobs,1,distance university llb,1,download online stamp paper,1,DPDP Act,1,DRDO Apprentice 2024,1,dropshipping business,1,DSSSB Delhi District Court Jobs in Delhi,1,DU LL.B Entrance Exam,1,DU LLB Entrance Exam Pattern,1,DY Chandrachud,1,e Stamp Paper,1,e-Stamp Paper download,1,e-Stamp Paper registration,1,earn money,2,earn money online,15,Earning Websites,2,Education,26,Electoral bonds,2,Engineering Jobs,11,English,1,English Skill,16,Entry Level Digital Marketing Jobs,1,Event Planner,1,Exam Schedule of UPSC,1,Exams,2,Explained Law,1,Fali S Nariman Quotes for Law Students,1,Fali Sam Nariman,1,Farewell Speech,1,Farmers Protest 2024,1,Fee Structure for Symbiosis Law School,1,female freedom fighters of india,1,FIR Quashing,1,fir quashing cases,1,fir quashing fees,1,fir quashing format,1,fir quashing grounds,1,fir quashing process,1,fir quashing section,1,Fiverr,1,Free Online Courses,1,Free Online Courses With Certificates,1,freedom fighters,1,Freedom of speech,1,Freelance Jobs,1,Freelance Websites for Beginners,1,Freelancing,1,Freelancing Sites,1,Fundamental Duties,1,Fundamental Rights of India,1,Gaganyaan Mission,1,Government Exams for Law Students,1,government law colleges,1,GPAT 2024,1,GPAT 2024 Exam Date,1,GPAT Exam Pattern,1,GPAT Syllabus,1,Graphic Designer Jobs,1,Gujarat Police Bharti 2024,1,Gujarat Police Bharti Constable Syllabus,1,gujarat riots bilkis bano,1,gun license,1,Gyanvapi case,1,Gyanvapi Mosque case,1,Habeas Corpus,1,Habeas Corpus case,1,Habeas Corpus Meaning,1,HAMA 1956,1,Handcuffing Case Laws,1,Handcuffing Judgments,1,Handcuffing Law in India,1,High Income Skills,1,High Income Skills without Degree,1,Hindi Blog,5,Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956,1,Hindu Law,1,Hindu Law Notes,1,history,1,History of Indian Banks,1,History of UCC,1,How are you doing Reply,1,How are you doing reply formal,1,How are you doing responses,1,How Are You Reply,1,How Are You Reply To Boy,1,How Are You Reply To Friends,1,How Are You Reply To Girl,1,How Do You Do Reply,1,How do you do reply in chat to a girl,1,How Have You Been,1,How have you been answer,1,How have you been reply,1,how to,2,how to answer,1,How to become a Barrister in India,1,How to Become a Lawyer or Advocate,1,How to get a Gun License in India,1,How to improve legal drafting skills,1,how to introduce yourself in an interview,1,How To Introduce Yourself In English,1,How to Obtain Gun License In India,1,How To Procure A Gun In India,1,How to reply how are you doing,1,how to send legal notice,1,How To Start A Speech,1,How to write your skills on a Resume,1,How Was your Day Reply,1,HP LEET 2024,1,hp leet exam date,1,hp leet exam pattern,1,hp leet syllabus,1,HP PAT 2024,1,HPCL Engineering Professional 2024 Online Form,1,hr interview questions and answers,1,IB Recruitment 2024,1,IB Recruitment 2024 Eligibility,1,IB Recruitment 2024 Last date,1,IB Recruitment 2024 Vacancy,1,IGNOU,8,IGNOU Admission,1,IGNOU Assignment Front Page,1,IGNOU Assignment Status,1,IGNOU Distance MBA Admission,1,IGNOU Exam Form June 2024,1,IGNOU Exam Time Table June 2024,1,IGNOU Exams,1,IGNOU Front Page,1,IGNOU Hall Ticket,1,IGNOU Latest Updates,1,IISER Admission Important Dates,1,IISER Application Form 2024,1,IISER Entrance Exam 2024 Syllabus,1,improve english,1,Income Tax,5,Income Tax Return,5,Income Tax Slabs,1,Indian Army Recruitment,1,Indian Constitution,10,Indian Contract Act,3,Indian Contract Act 1872,2,Indian Contract Act Section 6,1,Indian Laws,24,Indian Railway Jobs,1,Indian Stamp Bill 2023,1,indian women,1,Injunction,1,Injunction Act in India,1,International Womens day 2024,1,International Womens day Theme 2024,1,interview,1,Interview Questions and Answers,2,ipc 377,1,IT Act,1,ITI Jobs,7,ITR 1,1,ITR Filing Last Date,1,Jacob Elordi,1,Jacob Elordi faces allegations of alleged assault in Australia,1,Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Teacher Recruitment,1,JEE Main Syllabus,1,Jharkhand High Court Recruitment 2024,1,Jharkhand launches Widow Remarriage Incentive Scheme,1,JIPMAT 2024,1,JIS University,1,JIS University Law College,1,JIS University llb fees,1,Job interview,1,job interview questions and answers,1,Jobs in Bihar,4,Jobs in Chhattisgarh,1,Jobs in Gujarat,1,Jobs in Jharkhand,1,Jobs in Karnataka,1,Jobs in Kerala,1,Jobs in Madhya Pradesh,1,Jobs in Meghalaya,1,Jobs in Rajasthan,4,Jobs in Telangana,1,Jobs in Uttar Pradesh,2,Jobs in West Bengal,2,Join Indian Army,1,JRSET College of Law,1,jrset college of law admission,1,jrset college of law chakdaha nadia,1,jrset college of law contact no,1,jrset college of law courses,1,jrset college of law fees,1,Judgement on Electoral Bonds Scheme 2024,1,Judgments,10,Juice jacking,1,Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of India,1,Justice Indu Malhota,1,k8school,1,Kalyani University,1,KARTET 2024,1,KEAM 2024,1,kerala psc clerk,1,Kerala PSC Office Attendant,1,Kerala SET Exam,1,Kerala TET 2024,1,Kerala TET Exam,1,KPSC Group C Job,1,KPSC JE Recruitment,1,KPSC Recruitment 2024 Notification,1,KPSC Surveyor Recruitment 2024,1,KVS Admission 2024,1,Labour Law of India,2,Ladakh Protest,1,ladies freedom fighters of india,1,Lakhpati Didi Yojana,1,Lal Krishna Advani,1,Latest Government Jobs,76,Latest News,4,Latest Police Recruitment,1,Law Colleges,18,Law Notes,2,learn english,1,Legal Notice,1,Legitimacy To Child Born Outside Formal Marriage,1,Librarian Courses,1,List of bailable and non bailable offences,1,List of Chief Justice of India,1,List of the documents we should check before buying any land,1,LLB College in West Bengal,1,LLB Colleges in Bihar,1,llb for distance university graduates,1,LLB Jobs,4,Lok Adalat,1,Lok Adalat 2024,1,Lok Adalat scheduled,1,mah cet,1,MAH CET 3 years llb entrance,1,MAH CET apply online,1,mah cet law,1,MAH CET Law Entrance Exam cut off,1,MAH CET Law Entrance Exam Eligibility,1,MAH CET Law Entrance Exam pattern,1,MAH CET Law Entrance Exam syllabus,1,MAH CET LLB 2024,1,Mahtari Vandana Yojanaa,1,make money,2,make money ideas,2,make money online,8,Maneka Gandhi v Union of India 1978,1,Maryam Nawaz Biography,1,Mast App,1,Mast App Download,1,MBA Jobs,1,Meaning of How Are You Doing,1,Medical courses,1,medical courses after 12th,1,Medical Courses Without NEET,1,Medical Exams,1,Meghalaya Police Recruitment 2024,1,MH CET 2024,1,MIES RM Law College 3 Years LLB Admission,1,MIES RM Law College eligibility,1,MIES RM Law College fees,1,MIES RM Law College review,1,Minimum Support Price MSP,1,Minimum Wages Act 1948,1,money earning sites,2,money earning websites,1,Most Common Reply For Thanks,1,Motivational Quotes,1,Motivational Quotes for Students,1,MPSET Exam 2024,1,MPSET Exam Syllabus and MPSET Exam Pattern,1,MrBeast,1,MSP Law,1,nalsa,1,National Science Day 2024,1,Nationalization of Banks in India,1,Naval Dockyard Mumbai Apprentice Online Form 2024,1,Navtej Singh Johar v UOI,1,NCET 2024,1,neet exam,1,NEET PG 2024,1,New Hit and Run Law,1,Non Bailable Warrant,1,NPCIL Executive Trainee Recruitment,1,NUHM Hooghly Recruitment 2024,1,NVS Recruitment 2024,1,Offences Relating to Marriage,1,OICL AO Recruitment 2024,1,One Nation One Election,1,Online Business in India,1,Online Coding Teacher,1,Online Complaint Procedure,1,Online Courses,1,Online Courses With Certificates,1,Online Data Entry Jobs From Home,3,online earning platform,1,Online Earning Websites,1,online job,1,online jobs,64,Online Jobs For Students,1,Online Jobs From Home,3,Online Jobs without Investment,1,Online Teacher Jobs,3,Online Teaching Job,2,Online Teaching Job at BYJUS,1,Online Teaching Jobs,14,online tutor,2,Online Typing Jobs,2,Online Typing Jobs from Home,2,OSSC CHSL Recruitment,1,Parliament,1,Part time jobs,11,Part Time Online Teaching Jobs From Home,2,Patanjali,1,Patna Law College,1,Patna Law College admission,1,Patna Law College eligibility,1,Patna Law College llb admission,1,Patna Law College llb exam pattern,1,Patna Law College llb syllabus,1,Patna University,1,Patna University academic calendar 2024,1,PCPNDT Act1994,1,Personal Freedom Social justice,1,personality development,1,Physics Wallah,1,PlanetSpark,1,PM Modi,1,PM Modi Yojnaa,2,PM Vishwakarma Yojana,1,Police Jobs,5,Pradhan Mantri Aawas Yojana,1,Prenuptial Agreement in India,1,preply,1,PREVENTION OF UNFAIR MEANS BILL 2024,1,Print e Stamp Paper Online,1,Privacy and Data Protection Law in India,1,Privacy Laws in India,1,Prohibition of Sex Selection,1,Proofreader Jobs,1,proofreading jobs,3,PSC,1,PSC Jobs,1,PSSSB JE Recruitment 2024 Apply Online,1,Pune,1,Punjab Police Constable Syllabus,1,Punjab Police Recruitment 2024,1,pw,1,Question Papers,1,Quotes,1,Railway Apprentice 2024,1,Railway Group D Recruitment 2024,1,Railway jobs,7,Railway Recruitment 2024,1,Rajasthan APO Previous Year Paper,1,Rajasthan APO Salary 2024,1,Rajasthan APO Syllabus 2024,1,Rajasthan Civil Judge Recruitment,1,Rajasthan Pre DElEd Notification,1,Rajasthan PTET 2024,1,Rajasthan RPSC Public Relation Officer PRO Recruitment 2024,1,Rajasthan Safai Karamchari Recruitment 2024,1,Refer and Earn Apps,1,Register Cyber Crime Complaint,1,remote jobs,18,Right of Private Defence Under BNS 2023,1,Right to privacy,1,Right to privacy cases,1,Right to privacy gdpr,1,Right to privacy in india,1,Right to privacy law,1,Right To Property,1,RPF Constable Syllabus 2024,1,RPF SI Recruitment 2024,1,RPSC agriculture officer recruitment 2024,1,RPSC APO Vacancy 2024,1,RPSC PTI and Librarian Recruitment 2024,1,rrb alp,1,rrb alp 2024 job,1,rrb alp recruitment,1,RRB RPF Constable Recruitment 2024,1,RRB Technician Recruitment 2024,1,RRC Group D Recruitment,1,RSMSSB Junior Instructor Recruitment 2024,1,RSMSSB Rajasthan Stenographer Recruitment 2024,1,Salary,2,Sarkari Job,3,Sarkari Result,2,Sarkari Yojnaa,4,Sarsuna Law College,1,Sarsuna Law College courses,1,Sarsuna Law College fees,1,Sarsuna Law College location,1,Satish Ragde vs State of Maharashtra,1,Section 10 of Indian Contract Act explanation,1,Section 11 of Indian Contract Act,1,Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1,Section 2 of Indian Contact Act 1872,1,Section 6,1,sell online,1,Selvi vs State of Karnataka Case,1,SET Exams,1,Sexual Offence and Assault Against Woman and Child,1,Shabnam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,1,Shyambazar Law College,1,Side Hustle Ideas,1,Simplilearn,1,SKAIL,1,Slat exam,1,Snehangshu Kanta Acharya Institute of Law fees,1,Snehangshu Kanta Acharya Institute of Law SKAIL,1,South East Central Railway Act Apprentice Recruitment,1,South East Central Railway Apprentice Online Form,1,South East Central Railway Trade Apprentice 2024 Online Form,1,spoken english,1,SSC,4,SSC CGL 2024,1,SSC CHSL 2024,1,SSC CHSL Syllabus and Exam Pattern,1,SSC CPO 2024,1,SSC JE 2024,1,SSC JE Salary 2024,1,SSC JE Syllabus and Exam Pattern,1,SSC Jobs,3,SSC Junior Engineer Recruitment 2024,1,SSC Selection Post 12 Recruitment,1,Stay Order,1,Stay order definition,1,Stay order time limit,1,Stay order vs Injunction,1,Step by Step Procedures to File a Cyber Crime Complaint,1,Sudha Murty Nominated To Rajya Sabha,1,Suo Moto,1,Suo Moto in Indian Law,1,Supreme Court,1,Supreme Court 75th Anniversary,1,Supreme Court Building Fund Allocation,1,Surendranath Law College,1,Surendranath Law College Admission,1,Surendranath Law College Fees,1,Surrogacy in India,1,Survey Sites,1,Syllabus,15,Symbiosis Law Admission Test 2024,1,Symbiosis Law Admission Test Eligibility,1,Symbiosis Law School,1,Take Care Reply,1,Tax,6,tcs career,1,tcs entru level jobs,1,TCS Jobs for Freshers,1,Teaching Jobs,14,Technology,1,Telangana High Court Recruitment,1,Telecom Bill 2023,1,Tell me about yourself,1,tell me about yourself answer,1,tell me about yourself examples,1,tell me about yourself interview,1,tell me about yourself sample answers,1,tell me something about yourself,1,Tezpur Government Law College,1,The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill 2023,1,The Kesavananda Bharti case,1,The Places of Worship act,1,The Places of Worship Special Provisions Act 1991,1,The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006,1,THE PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS BILL 2024,1,Tips of Legal Drafting,1,TN TRB Assistant Professor Recruitment 2024,1,TNPSC CCSE Recruitment,1,TNSET 2024,1,top 10,1,top 10 freedom fighters of india,1,Top 11 Law Colleges in India without CLAT,1,TS LAWCET 2024,1,ts lawcet exam date,1,Ts lawcet exam pattern,1,ts lawcet last date,1,ts lawcet syllabus,1,TS LPCET 2024,1,Types of bail,1,Types of ITR Forms,1,Types of Writs,1,Typing Jobs,3,UCC,1,ugc net,1,ugc net 2024,1,ugc net age limit,1,ugc net eligibility,1,UGC NET Exam,1,ugc net exam date,1,ugc net exam pattern,1,ugc net full form,1,ugc net syllabus,1,Unacademy,1,Uniform Civil Code,1,Uniform Civil Code in Goa,1,University,3,University Law College Utkal University,1,UP HJS Recruitment 2024,1,Upcoming Bank Jobs,1,Upcoming Railway Vacancy,1,UPMRC Recruitment 2024,1,UPPSC Agriculture Services,1,UPSC Calendar 2025,1,UPSC CMS 2024,1,UPSC CMS Exam Pattern,1,UPSC CMS Salary,1,UPSC CMS Syllabus,2,UPSC IES ISS 2024,1,UPSC IES ISS Syllabus,1,UPSC Jobs,2,UPSSSC JE Recruitment 2024,1,UPSSSC Junior Analyst Recruitment 2024,1,Uttarakhand Cooperative Bank Recruitment 2024,1,Uttarakhand UCC,1,Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code,1,Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Bill 2024,1,Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill,1,Vakalatnama,1,Vakalatnama Fees,1,Vakalatnama Format,1,Vakalatnama Rules,1,Vishnu Rambhhaji Harishchandre vs Bar Council Of India case,1,Void and Voidable Marriage in Hindu Law,1,Wapcos,1,WAPCOS Recruitment,1,Watch Video and Earn Money,1,WB JECA 2024,1,WB JECA Exam Date,1,WB JECA Registration,1,WB JECA Syllabus,1,WB Police Constable Recruitment 2024,2,WB police sub inspector recruitment 2024,1,West Bengal ITI,1,wfh,2,What do you do reply for college students,1,what is bilkis bano case,1,what is caa,1,What is freelancing,1,What is ITR,1,What is legal notice,1,Which ITR Should I File,1,Women Freedom Fighters of India,1,Women Reservation Bill,1,WordPress Developer,1,work from home,6,Work From Home Jobs,21,writer job,1,Writs,2,
ltr
item
Barristery.in: Habeas Corpus: Meaning, Case Laws, Limitations
Habeas Corpus: Meaning, Case Laws, Limitations
The Writ of Habeas Corpus, derived from Latin meaning "you may have the body," is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be b
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLA4ShePFBq1Df_W2SD955zsnUj5mbNUshiwtPqnJo7XU7-UA5R5U9uDSxMQuYL2NeBVoALEl_xpSGkvt8KSrAauBEPk_WhG648sXbkNtPtoZL71ZdOKd53gzmszoWgf-t-KyaT-eS8Ij_txmIIz2sT0xxLaazEha1XmhckQxlpZb_DD-eInsTW1Tq/s16000/How%20to%20Answer%20%E2%80%9CTell%20Me%20About%20Yourself%E2%80%9D%20(48).png
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLA4ShePFBq1Df_W2SD955zsnUj5mbNUshiwtPqnJo7XU7-UA5R5U9uDSxMQuYL2NeBVoALEl_xpSGkvt8KSrAauBEPk_WhG648sXbkNtPtoZL71ZdOKd53gzmszoWgf-t-KyaT-eS8Ij_txmIIz2sT0xxLaazEha1XmhckQxlpZb_DD-eInsTW1Tq/s72-c/How%20to%20Answer%20%E2%80%9CTell%20Me%20About%20Yourself%E2%80%9D%20(48).png
Barristery.in
https://www.barristery.in/2024/02/habeas-corpus.html
https://www.barristery.in/
https://www.barristery.in/
https://www.barristery.in/2024/02/habeas-corpus.html
true
8524615770953786617
UTF-8
Loaded All Posts Not found any posts VIEW ALL Readmore Reply Cancel reply Delete By Home PAGES POSTS View All RECOMMENDED FOR YOU LABEL ARCHIVE SEARCH ALL POSTS Not found any post match with your request Back Home Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat January February March April May June July August September October November December Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec just now 1 minute ago $$1$$ minutes ago 1 hour ago $$1$$ hours ago Yesterday $$1$$ days ago $$1$$ weeks ago more than 5 weeks ago Followers Follow THIS PREMIUM CONTENT IS LOCKED STEP 1: Share to a social network STEP 2: Click the link on your social network Copy All Code Select All Code All codes were copied to your clipboard Can not copy the codes / texts, please press [CTRL]+[C] (or CMD+C with Mac) to copy Table of Content