Habeas Corpus Most Potent Safeguard Against Illegal Detention, Can't Be Run Down By Misuse In Marital, Child Custody Cases: Telangana HC

"A Writ of Habeas Corpus can only be issued when a detention or imprisonment is without authority of law i.e., when the person is under illegal detention. With the expansion of the scope of Habeas Corpus, the Writ is often used against a spouse who has been illegally detained by his/her parents or in cases of custody of a child. In such cases, the Court must come to the conclusion that the person is under detention without authority of law."

The Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Madhusudan Rao Bobbili Ramaiah further noted that before invoking the jurisdiction of Habeas Corpus the Court should come to the conclusion that the arrest is illegal.

Additionally that, when it comes to seeking the presence of a grown individual, the Court should direct the aggrieved individual to approach the appropriate forum instead of invoking extraordinary jurisdiction.

"It is important to sound a word of caution with regard to the cases where missing men and women are sought to be produced before the Court through this mechanism. The more appropriate course of action in such cases would be to register a "Missing Person" case in the jurisdictional police station or appropriate proceedings for tracing the missing person in the manner provided under The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These cases should be dealt by the competent Court of law without invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts: Selvaraj Vs. State."

The order was passed in a writ petition filed by the Husband of the detenue with a prayer to direct the concerned Police officials to produce her before court. The petitioner contended that the life of his wife was in danger and he was worried about her well being.

The government pleader on the other hand contended that the police officials had spoken to the detenue, who informed them that she had left the company of her husband on her own accord, since the petitioner would physically abuse her.

The bench after hearing both sides dismissed the petition with an observation that the writ of habeas corpus has sovereign and transcendent authority. That the courts are to be circumspect where a petitioner seeks to invoke this extraordinary remedy in matters where either the act of disappearance is voluntary or where the detention satisfies due process.

Thus the writ was dismissed.

Counsel for petitioner: K.R. Vijay

Counsel for respondents: Special government pleader, Swaroop Oorilla