Skip to main content

Habeas Corpus is the Only Remedy Against Illegal Detention: High Court

A full bench of the Hyderabad High Court has made it clear that the writ of habeas corpus is the only remedy available against illegal detention of a citizen. The writ’s object is to secure the release of a person who is illegally deprived of his liberty, it has noted.

“Liberty of a citizen is a precious right, which cannot be transgressed by any one, including the detaining authorities. A writ of habeas corpus is an effective and prompt remedy. The detenu or any other person on his behalf can file habeas corpus writ petition to show a prima facie case of his unlawful detention and ,if he succeeds in establishing before the Court, he is entitled to the writ of habeas corpus as of right.”

The bench headed by acting chief justice Dilip B Bhosale has made the above observations while dealing with a question referred to it: “Whether a petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can be entertained against the order of preventive detention passed under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act or any other enactment authorising preventive detention?”

Article referred: http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/Habeas-Corpus-is-the-Only-Remedy-Against-Illegal-Detention-High-Court/2015/09/07/article3014268.ece

Comments

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...