Misuse of Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Kusum Sahu (2025) set aside the High Court's order releasing an accused through habeas corpus jurisdiction, emphasizing that such jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent rejection of bail applications. 

What was the Background of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Kusum Sahu (2025) Case? 

• Jibrakhan Lal Sahu was accused in FIR No.157 of 2021 for offences under Sections 420 (cheating) and 409 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• He was arrested on December 12, 2023, and chargesheet was filed on February 9, 2024. 
• Between January and May 2024, the accused filed four bail applications before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which were all dismissed. 
• After rejection of all bail applications, his daughter Kusum Sahu filed a habeas corpus petition claiming her father was in unlawful detention. 
• The High Court, vide order dated October 3, 2024, allowed the writ petition and directed his release on a personal bond of ₹5,000. 
• The High Court acknowledged that bail rejection orders could be challenged before a higher court but proceeded to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226, citing the parties' inability to afford Supreme Court appeal and their mental agony. 
• The State challenged this before the Supreme Court, which stayed the order on July 18, 2025, noting the jurisdiction exercise "shocks our conscience." 
• The accused surrendered on October 25, 2025. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held that the process followed by the High Court was "totally unknown to law" and the manner in which the case was dealt with "shocks the conscience of this Court." 
• The Court emphasized that custody of an accused in a criminal case cannot be held unlawful when bail applications have been properly dismissed. 
• The bench noted the High Court improperly examined the case on merits as if hearing a bail appeal, rather than determining unlawfulness of detention. 
• The Court warned against following such precedent as it would "scuttle the due process of law," stating it was necessary "to nip the evil in the bud." 
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, clarifying that future bail applications may be considered on their own merits by the concerned court. 

What is Habeas Corpus? 

Meaning and Nature: 

• Habeas corpus is a Latin term meaning "you may have the body." 
• It is a legal procedure that acts as a remedial measure for persons who are illegally detained. 
• The basic purpose is to release a person from unlawful detention or imprisonment. 
• It is an order issued by the court to present the detenu before the court and check whether the arrest was lawful or not. 
• The writ determines a person's right to freedom and personal liberty. 

Constitutional Provisions: 

• The Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 have power to issue writs. 
• Under Article 32, the Supreme Court issues writs for violation of fundamental rights. 
• Under Article 226, High Courts have wider jurisdiction to issue writs for both violation of legal as well as fundamental rights. 
• The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all authorities within and outside the territorial jurisdiction of India. 
• High Courts deal with matters when they have control over that authority, and the cause of action arises within their jurisdiction. 

Who May Apply: 

• The person confined or detained illegally. 
• Any person who is aware of the benefit of the case. 
• Any person familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case who willingly files an application under Article 32 or 226. 
• As held in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983), if a detained person cannot file an application, some other person can file it on his behalf. 

When the Writ is Refused: 

• When the court lacks territorial jurisdiction over the detainer. 
• When detention is connected with the order of a competent court. 
• When the person detained is already set free. 
• When confinement has been legitimized by removal of defects. 
• When a competent court dismisses the petition on grounds of merits. 

Nature and Scope: 

• It is a procedural writ, not a substantive writ, as held in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate Darjeeling (1974). 
• The focus is on the legality of detention by examining facts and circumstances, rather than merely producing the body before court. 
• The writ can be filed not only for wrongful confinement but also for protection from ill-treatment and discrimination by detaining authority, as held in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980). 
• The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to illegal confinement cases; successive petitions can be filed with fresh grounds. 

Burden of Proof: 

• The burden lies on the detaining person or authority to satisfy the court that detention was on legal grounds. 
• If the detenu alleges malicious confinement outside the authority's jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the detenu.