"Habeas Plea Maintainability Not Opposed By State": Allahabad HC Directs Further Tracing Of Elderly COVID Patient Missing From Hospital

The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Piyush Agrawal also noted that Government authorities didn't raise any objection as to the maintainability of the Habeas plea in light of the fact that the State has preferred an SLP, against the Allahabad HC's August 28 Order in the instant matter.

In its August 28 order (against which an SLP has been filed) the High Court had made certain observations regarding available/required medical equipment, CCTV cameras, etc. as per standard and norms of the State Government in various hospitals including the hospital in question and uniform SOP for Government Hospitals is concerned.

The Court observed that the maintainability of habeas plea was not opposed even when the Court, on two occasions, gave the State respondents a chance to oppose the same. 

Court's proceedings on September 13

Dealing with the matter on September 13, the Court was informed that the State has moved an SLP (before the Apex Court) and therefore, the Court, at the outset, clarified that in the instant matter, it was primarily concerned with the tracing of the corpus and that the observations made in its August 28 weren't "court's primary concern" in the writ petition.

Consequently, the State Respondents in the matter were given the opportunity to raise the question of maintainability of the habeas corpus writ petition.

The Court had also observed thus:

"So far as certain observations made in the body of the order dated 27.08.2021 regarding available/required medical equipments, CCTV cameras etc. as per standard and norms of the State Government in various hospitals including the hospital in question and uniform SOP for Government Hospitals is concerned, that is not our primary concern in this writ petition. Therefore, we leave it to the State Government either to disclose these figures before this Court or not as it may think appropriate in its wisdom."

Court proceedings on September 15

Pursuant to Court's September 13 order, Advocate General informed the Court that he has received three instructions from respondents; firstly, from the Secretary, Home Department; secondly, from the Director-General of Medical Health; and thirdly, from the Secretary, Medical & Health Department of the State.

At the outset, the Court reiterated that in the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, the Court's main concern was that the corpus – Shri Ram Lal Yadav be traced and be produced before this Court.

Thereafter, the Court perused the instructions received by the Advocate General by three above named authorities and noted the following:

• The Home Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh did not raise any objection as to the maintainability of the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition and instead, stated that the instructions have been issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police/DIG, Prayagraj to take steps to trace out the corpus. It was also mentioned that Medical Department has filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
• The Director-General of Medical & Health also did not object to the maintainability of the present Habeas Corpus Writ Petition.
• The Secretary, Medical & Health Department of the State also didn't say anything on the maintainability of the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition and merely stated, that the SLP had been filed, in which, the question of maintainability of the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition may be decided by the Supreme Court

Importantly, the Court noted that none of the respondents, either orally or on affidavit, raised any objection before the Court as to the maintainability of the present writ petition.

Regarding the reply from the Secretary, Medical & Health Department, the Court noted that he has no concern with the tracing of the corpus and to produce him before the Court in the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the personal affidavits filed by the respondents on earlier occasions and the instructions of the Home Department, the Court again directed the respondents, namely, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj, to trace out and produce the corpus – Shri Ram Lal Yadav before the Court or submit a progress report in this regard on the next date fixed.