Article 32 under the Constitution of India – Right To Constitutional Remedies Concept and Purpose Article 32 of the Indian Constitution gives the right to individuals to move to the Supreme Court to seek justice when they feel that their right has been ‘unduly deprived’ . The apex court is given the authority to issue directions or orders for the execution of any of the rights bestowed by the constitution as it is considered ‘the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights’ .. Types of Writs There are five types of Writs as provided under Article 32 of the Constitution: 1. Habeas Corpus The expression “Habeas Corpus” is a Latin term which means ‘to have the body’. If a person is detained unlawfully, his relatives or friends or any person can move the Court by filing an application under Article 226 in High Court or under Article 32 in Supreme Court for the writ of Habeas Corpus. The main objective of this writ is to provide immediate remedy to person unlawfully detained, whether in prison or private custody. The detention becomes unlawful if a person who is arrested is not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. Also the law under which the person is detained must be lawful, if the law itself is unlawful then the detention is also unlawful. Important judgments on Habeas Corpus The first Habeas Corpus case of India was that in Kerala where it was filed by the victims’ father as the victim P. Rajan who was a college student was arrested by the Kerala police and being unable to bear the torture he died in police custody. So, his father Mr T.V. Eachara Warier filed a writ of Habeas Corpus and it was proved that he died in police custody. Then, in the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla , which is also known as the Habeas Corpus case, it was held that the writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended even during the emergency (Article 359).
While deciding whether Habeas Corpus writs are civil or criminal in nature, it was held in Narayan v. Ishwarlal that the court would rely on the way of the procedures in which the locale has been executed. This writ has been extended to non-state authorities as well which is evident from two cases. One from the Queen Bench’s case of 1898 of Ex Parte Daisy Hopkins in which the proctor of Cambridge University detained and arrested Hopkins without his jurisdiction and Hopkins was released. And in the case of Somerset v. Stewart wherein an African Slave whose master had moved to London was freed by the action of the Writ.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 6 pages?
- Spring '08
- law hod
- IAS NEXT NOTES , Law Notes ,