Different forms of the Writ of

Habeas Corpus
This writ has many forms
• 1) The writ of Habeas Corpus ad
subjiciendum: - The writ by which illegally
detained persons secured their liberty was
called Habeas Corpus ad Subjuciendum. This
writ is the great and efficacious writ which
was directed to the person detaining another
and commanding him to produce the body
of the prisoner and to show the cause of that
persons arrest and detention. This writ was
 issued by the Court of England as a

• 2) The writ of Habeas Corpus ad

Testificandum:- This was meant to produce
before the court any person who is in legal
custody to give evidence.
• 3) The writ of Habeas Corpus ad
Respondendum:- The object of this writ is to
bring prisoners before a court for trial or
examination on any charge other than the
one for which he was arrested.
• 4) The writ of Habeas Corpus ad
Deliberandum and /or Recepiendum:- This
Object and importance of the writ,
arena of challenge, scope of writ,
• In Greene V. Secretary of State for Home
Affairs
Lord Wright rightly observed: “ The
Loading…
inestimable value of the proceedings is that it
is the most efficient mode ever devised by
any system of law to end unlawful
detainments and to secure a speedy release
where the circumstances and the law so
required”.
• The Primary object of the writ was said to be
immediate determination of the right of
applicants freedom- that was its substance and
its end.
As stated in Ranjit Singh V. State of
Pepsu
the whole object of this writ is to keep law
as free technicality as possible, and to keep
them as simple as permissible as otherwise
the incalculable value of this writ is lost.
 This writ has been described as a writ of right

• Public Interest Litigation and judicial activism

- extended arms of writ jurisdiction, writ
jurisdiction and private sector, development of
Loading…
human rights jurisprudence, prerogative writs
and obsolete writs, Curative Petition, Indian
law of writs in retrospect and prospect,
introduction and meaning of judicial review,
judicial review and administrative review,
exclusion of judicial review, exclusion of
jurisdiction of civil courts and tribunals,
grounds and limits of judicial review
Scope of the
writ of Habeas
Corpus
• That the
• In Francis Coralie,it was stated that the right
to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be
restricted to mere animal existence and it
also laid down that apart from Article 22, there
is also Article 21 which restricts power o
preventive detention.
• In Keshav Singh,1981 the need for human
dignity even for a prisoner was again
highlighted.
• In Rakesh Kanshik 1981, it still another
 reminder about the role of the Court in

KANU SANYAL V. DISTRICT

MAGISTRATE
• The petitioner was an active member of a
naxalite group who was remanded in the
central jail of Darjeeling for having committed
certain offences. A charge sheet was filed
against him and some others. The offences
committed by him were such as could only be
tried by a sessions court where the prisoner be
brought before a special magistrate in
• In this decision it was stated that, the writ of
habeas corpus cannot be issued when it is
ascertained that the detention of the person
so detained is not illegal and neither it is
without jurisdiction. It would be completely
out of its purpose in this case as there exists no
right to claim the writ when the detention is
necessary and purposeful. Also the date that is
to be taken into account in case of a writ
petition, is the date the petition was filed on. It
was decided because the earliest date had to be
• The court can hear the Rule Nisi even in the
absence of the detained person. Rule Nisi is to
‘ show cause’ which means an order of a court
is final until the party to whom it applies
shows reason otherwise. Once the rule nisi is
issued by the court the body of the detained
has to be produced before the court. Presence
before the court is subsidiary to the primary
objective of Habeas Corpus and that is to
ensure an illegally detained man’s liberty. It is
referred to as the great writ solely because of
SUNIL BATRA V. DELHI
ADMINISTRATION
This case is related to the rights of a prisoner.
It highlights Loading…
the horrendous conditions that
exist in Indian prisons. Sunil Batra was a
prisoner of Tihar Jail in Delhi. There he got
the knowledge that one of his fellow prisoners,
Prem Chand was being treated barbarically by
the prison authorities and was being brutally
tortured for money. The warden used to torture
• Sunil Batra wrote a letter to the judge wherein
he addressed this cause. This letter was then
transformed into a petition under Habeas
Corpus. Here, the learned Justice Krishna Iyer
stated that, human rights do not end for a
prisoner. A prisoner is as much a citizen of
India as is anybody else and had to be granted
his basic rights as a person. If a prisoner, as per
him is not regarded as a person then there is no
point of having a democracy or a constitution
at all. Again he state that “ the finest hour of
• Further he said that the it is needed to broaden
the scope of habeas corpus was felt so that
even the ones behind bars could benefit from it
and their rights can be safeguarded. This case
opened up new horizons of application of the
writ. There existed no one particular straight
jacket way to invoke a writ.
ADM JABALPUR V. SHIVAKANTH
SHUKLA
In India 28th April was regarded as
black day in the history of Habeas Corpus,
because a presidential order was passed stating
that nobody had the right to move any court
in a writ petition for enforcement of
Fundamental Rights. The High Courts had
decided to entertain the writ petitions
despite government order.
 The Supreme Court though, thought

• Where does judicial discretion go in case of

a presidential order? Is the emergency
period so crucial or despotic so as to give
ultimate powers to the State, so much so that
the whole point of granting liberty in the first
place to all individuals is taken away? Due to
this judgment 44th amendment was brought
into the constitution in the year 1978 wherein
it was made that Fundamental Rights could not
be suspended in case of a National Emergency.
Ultimately the wrong was made right
 S.P. Gupta V. Union of India commonly
known as Judges Transfer case

In this case it is the opinion of

court that where anybody acting
probono publico (for public good)can
knock the doors of the court for the
relief under writ of habeas corpus. The
court observed that “Where the weaker
sections of the community are

Sunil Batra v. Delhi

Administration
This case is related to the rights of a prisoner.
It highlights the horrendous conditions that
exist in Indian prisons. Sunil Batra was a
prisoner of Tihar Jail in Delhi. There he got the
knowledge that one of his fellow prisoners,
Prem Chand was being treated barbarically by
the prison authorities and was being brutally
tortured for money. The warden used to torture
 Again he state that “ the finest hour of justice
comes when court and counsel
constructively collaborate to fashion in the
case a relief to the prisoner. Further he said
that the it is needed to broaden the scope of
habeas corpus was felt so that even the ones
behind bars could benefit from it and their
rights can be safeguarded. This case opened
up new horizons of application of the writ.
There existed no one particular straight jacket