A habeas corpus petition is based on the fact that it is time-sensitive. It’s filed under Article 32, which is only used when basic rights are in jeopardy.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a law student to visit his parents in Jammu and Kashmir’s Anantnag region, as well as CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury to meet party comrade Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami, who is currently incarcerated in the state. The Supreme Court was deciding on two habeas corpus petitions that were brought before it.
Soon after the Presidential decree repealing Article 370 for the state, Mohammad Aleem Syed, a student at Jamia Millia Islamia University, and Yechury addressed the court.
Both petitions were like a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows a court to order a detainee to appear in court before the judges. Detention, as defined in a Habeas Corpus petition, does not always have to be physical and should be sufficient to restrict one’s liberty.
The two petitioners said that the people they were looking for have been inaccessible since the information and communication blackout was imposed in Jammu and Kashmir.
A Jan. 6 defendant filed a habeas corpus petition, alleging his #ConstitutionalRights were repeatedly violated while being held pending trial.
He’s the first implicated in the US Capitol breach to file such a petition. https://t.co/JrHhOpGH8s
— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) April 30, 2022
The court, on the other hand, did not address the merits of the petition and did not send a notice to the Centre raising concerns about the detention. Instead, a three-judge panel led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi authorized both petitioners to see their respective parties in Kashmir and report back to the court via affidavits on what happened during their visit.
What exactly are habeas corpus petitions, though? Why were they submitted, and was the Supreme Court’s decision on August 28 by the petition’s nature? The Print elucidates.
What Is the Purpose of A Habeas Corpus Petition?
Habeas Corpus Is a Latin Word that Roughly Translates to “you Must Have the Body.” This Petition, Filed Under Article 32 of The Constitution, Asks the Court to Order a Detainee to Be Produced Before the Court by A Certain Individual or Authority. the Court Will Be Asked to Rule on The Legality of Such Detention as A Result of This Petition.
Is There a Deadline for Deciding on Such a Petition?
The Supreme Court Decided in A.K. Gopalan vs Government of India, 1965, that The Earliest Date on Which the Legality of Imprisonment Can Be Evaluated Is the Date on Which the Application Is Filed with The Court.
In the Two Cases Before the Court, the Jamia Milia Islamia Student Entered His Plea on August 9, After Waiting Four Days to Speak with His Parents, and Yechury Filed His Plea on August 11, After Waiting Four Days to Speak with His Parents. Both Pleas Said that The Ban on Media and Communication Constituted a Breach of The Right to Life and Liberty and That the Defendants Must Appear in Court.
This Petition Is Based on The Fact that It Is Time-Sensitive. only When Basic Rights Are in Jeopardy Is Article 32 Applied. Article 21 of The Constitution Protects Not Just the Right to Life but Also the Right to Liberty. This Was One of The Checks and Balances the Legislature Put in Place when Enacting the Law.
What About the Detention’s Legality?
Although Supreme Court Tradition Holds that The Legality of The Custody Would Be Decided as Soon as The Court Receives the Application, the Sc Has Not Addressed the Legal Issue of The Detention in This Case. Instead, It Has Ordered the Petitioners to Meet the “bodies” at Their “detention” Facility.
The Validity of The Detention Is Linked to The Appeals of Kashmir Times Editor Anuradha Bhasin and Activist Tehseen Poonawalla, Who Have Challenged the State’s Communication Blockade. the Supreme Court, on The Other Hand, Has Given the Centre a Week to Respond to The Efforts Taken to Alleviate the Situation in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Court Ordered the Jamia Milia Islamia Student to Return to Jamia Milia Islamia After Visiting Anantnag and Requested that The Government Provide Him with Proper Police Security. the Supreme Court Has Granted Yechury Permission to Visit Srinagar on The Condition that He Does Not Make It a Political Trip. Yechury Attempted to Visit Srinagar Twice but Was Turned Away at The Airport Both Times.
In a First for A Habeas Corpus Petition, Yechury Also Swore that He Will only Go to J&k to Meet His Colleague and Will Not Do Anything Else. After Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Claimed the Visit Will Be Utilized for Political Objectives, the Decision Was Made.
In India, Has Habeas Corpus Ever Been Denied?
The Habeas Corpus Petition Not only Brings the Person in Custody Before the Court but Also Decides Whether or Not the Imprisonment Was Valid. Such Petitions Are Frequently Dismissed if The Court Believes the Detention Was Not Done with The Individual’s Permission.
After Dismissing a Habeas Corpus Case Filed by The Woman’s Mother in 2014, a Madras High Court Bench Allowed a 19-Year-Old Hindu Woman Who Converted to Islam and Married a Muslim Man to Live with Her Spouse.
The Mother Had Filed a Complaint in Court, Alleging that Her Husband Had Unlawfully Imprisoned Her. However, when The Woman Was Brought Before the Court, She Said that She Was Not Detained and That She Was Doing so Of Her Own Free Will.