Assertion That Corpus Is Abducted By Unknown Miscreants Isn't Sufficient To Invoke Habeas Corpus Writ: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that only an assertion that the corpus has been abducted by some unknown miscreants, is not sufficient to seek issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.The Bench of Justice S. A. Dharmadhikari further held that the condition precedent for instituting a writ of habeas corpus is that the person for whose release, the writ of habeas corpus is sought must be...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that only an assertion that the corpus has been abducted by some unknown miscreants, is not sufficient to seek issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
The Bench of Justice S. A. Dharmadhikari further held that the condition precedent for instituting a writ of habeas corpus is that the person for whose release, the writ of habeas corpus is sought must be in detention and he must be under detention by the Authorities or by any private individual.
The case in brief
A Habeas corpus writ plea was instituted before the High Court by one Chhaya Gurjar submitting that certain miscreants have abducted her sister-in-law (namely Aarti), as well as, Aarti's daughter Kajal from the campus of High Court.
Further, it was contended that when mother-in-law of corpus Aarti had come to High Court in connection with some case, the accused persons abducted Aarti and her daughter Kajal.
Lastly, it was alleged in the plea that the respondent-Authorities are having all the information in respect of both of them, but are not providing any information. It was also alleged that despite lodging a missing person report at Police Station, to date no action had been taken in that behalf.
On the other hand, the Government pleader submitted that the writ of habeas corpus can't be issued in this matter as there is no allegation that the corpus and her daughter are in illegal confinement of any private respondent. It was also submitted that the Petitioner had not impleaded any suspect as party respondent.
Court's observations
The Court noted that the controversy in the instant matter was regarding whether a writ of habeas corpus can be issued against an unknown abductor in respect of a missing person?
At the outset, the Court said that under the writ of habeas corpus, the fundamental right and liberty is to be protected, only if there is an illegal detention, either by State or by a private individual.
Importantly, stressing that in such matters, there must be illegal detention or at least there must be some substantiated grounds regarding suspicion, the Court further remarked thus:
"In the absence of any such contention, no habeas corpus petition can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Habeas Corpus is a writ in the nature of an order calling 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 to set him free if there is no legal jurisdiction for the imprisonment."
Lastly, referring to various judgments of the Apex Court, the Court concluded thus:
"The only assertion that the corpus have been abducted by some unknown miscreants, is not sufficient to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of writ of habeas corpus, which though a writ of right, is not a writ of course."
The petition was accordingly, dismissed, however, this Court directed the respondents/Police Authorities to bring the investigation pursuant to the missing person report to its logical end, as expeditiously as possible.
In related news, the Gauhati High Court recently held that missing person cases would not come within the ambit of a habeas corpus petition (without strong suspicion of illegal detention), but such cases are required to be registered under the regular provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
Case title - Smt. Chhaya Gurjar v. State of M.P. & Others
Read Order