Habeas Corpus
Habeas Corpus: Case studies
INTRODUCTION
The right of personal liberty is guaranteed by Article 21 which says, ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.’ The writ of habeas corpus has nonetheless long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the right to personal liberty. The jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the British Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty".[1]
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Since general declarations regarding fundamental rights had not much value unless there existed the will and the means to enforce them, the constituent assembly showed the will and provided the means to enforce the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.[2] Article 13 (1) made all existing laws pro tanto void if they were inconsistent with fundamental rights and Article 13(2) made all laws enacted by the state pro tanto void if they took away or abridged fundamental rights.
Articles 32 and 226 confer on the Supreme Court and the High Courts powers to issue appropriate writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. These provide effective and speedy remedies for asserting fundamental rights against laws which violate them. Speaking on Article 32 (draft Art. 25) in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar described the Article as the very soul of the constitution because it provided effective remedies against violation of fundamental rights as no legislature could take away these remedies.[3]
Historical Account of Habeas Corpus
1 English Common Law
Few pages in English history are more inspiring than those relating to the writ of habeas corpus, for they show the determination of the people to secure personal liberty by a speedy and effective legal remedy. In his Judicial Review
INTRODUCTION
The right of personal liberty is guaranteed by Article 21 which says, ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.’ The writ of habeas corpus has nonetheless long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the right to personal liberty. The jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the British Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty".[1]
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Since general declarations regarding fundamental rights had not much value unless there existed the will and the means to enforce them, the constituent assembly showed the will and provided the means to enforce the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.[2] Article 13 (1) made all existing laws pro tanto void if they were inconsistent with fundamental rights and Article 13(2) made all laws enacted by the state pro tanto void if they took away or abridged fundamental rights.
Articles 32 and 226 confer on the Supreme Court and the High Courts powers to issue appropriate writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. These provide effective and speedy remedies for asserting fundamental rights against laws which violate them. Speaking on Article 32 (draft Art. 25) in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar described the Article as the very soul of the constitution because it provided effective remedies against violation of fundamental rights as no legislature could take away these remedies.[3]
Historical Account of Habeas Corpus
1 English Common Law
Few pages in English history are more inspiring than those relating to the writ of habeas corpus, for they show the determination of the people to secure personal liberty by a speedy and effective legal remedy. In his Judicial Review
Bibliography: 1. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 3rd edn. Vol. 2 1449 (Sweet & Maxwell Tripathi 1994) 2 5. HALSBURY, Vol. II, 3rd edn. p. 28 6.SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND: IN FOUR BOOKS, Volume 2 136 (Deacon and Peterson 1860) 7. Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the laws of England: In four books, Volume 2 136 (Deacon and Peterson 1860) 8 ----------------------- [1] Anthony Wright Citizens and subjects: an essay on British politics (Routledge, 1994) [2] H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 3rd edn. Vol. 2 1449 (Sweet & Maxwell Tripathi 1994) [3] C.A.D [6] Darnel’s case (1627) 3 State Tr. 1; H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 3rd edn. Vol. 2 1454 (Sweet & Maxwell Tripathi 1994 [7] 3 Car [8] HALSBURY, Vol. II, 3rd edn. p. 28 [9] SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND: IN FOUR BOOKS, Volume 2 136 (Deacon and Peterson 1860) [12] (1955) 2 SCR 983 [13] DE SMITH, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 4th edn [14] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, 20th edn. 135 (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur 2009) [15] State of Bihar v [16] Madhu Limaye, in re. AIR 1969 SC 1014 (1019) [17] Jage Ram, Inspector of Police v [18] Ikram Hussain, Mohd. V. State of U.P. AIR 1964 SC 1625 (1630) [19] AIR 1983 SC 378 [22] Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, edn. 884 ( Lexis Nexis Butterworths 2000) [23] Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the laws of England: In four books, Volume 2 136 (Deacon and Peterson 1860) [24] Matthen v. Dist. Magistrate, Trivandrum (1939) 66 I.A. 222 [25] 1950 RLW 37 [26] 1948 Jaipur Law Reports 230 [27] (1959)1 Q.B [28] (1959) Ch. 368 [29] H.M [30] 1951 A.B. 25 (FB) [31] (1967) 2 SCR 271