SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(SC) 393

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Sebastian M. Hongray, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. (Criminal) No. 148 of 1983, Dated 24-11-1983
 
Advocates appeared
Mr C. S.Vaidynathan and Ms. Nandita Haksar, Advocates, for Petitioner; Mr.K.G. Bhagat, Addl. Solicitor General, Mr. P.P.Singh and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him, for Respondent; Mr.V. C. Mahajan, Sr.Advocate, Mr. Balbir Singh Shant, Mr S. K. Mehta and Mrs. Urmila Kapur, Advocates with him, for the State of Manipur.

Advocates:
A.Subhashini, Balbir Singh Shant, C.S.VAIDYANATHAN, K.G.Bhagat, NANDITA HAKSAR, P.P.SINGH, S.K.MEHTA, URMILA KAPUR, V.C.MAHAJAN

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India, 1950 Article 32 Writ of Habeas Corpus - Petitioner alleges that one C. Daniel and C. Paul were arrested by the Sikh Regiment Manipur on 10th March 1982 - After that despite repeated attempts their where about are not known and they were last seen in the army camp - Respondents admit that the aforesaid persons were taken to the army camp, however they counter allege that these persons left the camp the next day.

       Question -

       Have the respondents established that the missing persons left the army camp the next day and thus discharged the burden of proof laid on them? (No) (Paras 19, 21, 27 and 28)

       (ii) Constitution of India, Article 32 - Writ of Habeas Corpus - When a person in custody of respondents, is said to have long left that custody - Can writ of habeas corpus be issued and return insisted upon? (Yes) (Para 31) - Writ of habeas corpus-Disobedience of - The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 Section 2(b) Civil Contempt-Court issued a writ of habeas corpus against the respondent to produce one a and P in court- Respondent failed to honour the directive and concocted evidence to show that the missing persons had left the respondents custody with their compatriots –

       Question -

       Whether there has been a wilful disobedience to the writ of babe as corpus making the respondents guilty of civil contempt? (Yes) (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

DESAI, J. :— Petitioner is a student of Political Science studying in Jawaharlal Nehru University at Delhi. He belongs to Naga community and hails from Manipur. He has moved this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution praying for a writ of habeas corpus calling upon the respondents - Union of India, State of Manipur and Commandant, 21st Sikh Regiment to produce before this Court Shri C. Daniel, a former Naik Subedar attached to Manipur Rifles and at the relevant time Head Master of Junior High School, Huining, Ukhrul East, District Manipur State and Shri C. Paul, Assistant Pastor, attached to the Baptist Church in Huining village who according to the petitioner were whisked away on March 10, 1982 from Huining village to Phungrei Camp and detained by the Officer-in-charge of 21st Sikh Regiment and are held incommunicado, not released till today nor their whereabouts are made known.

2. Petitioner averred that 21st Sikh Regiment has set up a camp at Phungrei. Some jawans attached to this Regiment visited Huining village on March 5, 1982 rounded-up villagers and detained them in the playground and the women folk and children were confined in the S. D. A. Church Building. Most of the villagers were released on March 6, 1982 around 10.30 a.m. Three .students K. Nelson, H. R. Aaron and K. Paul studying in Petigrew College were arrested and taken away. The jawans resorted to firing which resulted in the death of one Luinam. It was only at about 11.00 p.m. on March 6, 1982 when the Major and Captain of the 21st Sikh Regiment were presented with some shawls that the captives were released. On March 7, 1982 one Mr. Joshi, Deputy Commissioner, East Ukhrul accompanied by Additional District Magistrate visited Huining village to enquire about the incidents of the previous day. The army jawans, who were present in the village, produced before the aforementioned officers certificates of villagers exonerating them of allegation of ill-treatment and praising the conduct of jawans, which according to the petitioner were obtained under duress from the local residents. On March 7, 1982, the Sunday service by Shri C. Paul, Assistant Pastor and C. Daniel, Head Master in the Church was disturbed by one Subedar and 4 jawans who proceeded to collect some signatures under duress from those who had assembled to participate in the Church service. The certificates were ostensibly obtained to show that the army officers and jawans had not treated the villagers with force or cruelty and nothing untoward had happened on the previous two days. On March 10, 1982, C. Daniel and C. Paul were arrested by the army jawans and were taken away from the village. At the same time, some signatures were obtained by the jawans on blank papers from Machihan, village Headman, and from one Shangnam, a member of the village authority. On the next day, Machihan village Headman, reported the fact of arrest of C. Daniel and C. Paul to the Deputy Commissioner, East Ukhrul, Shri Joshi. As C. Daniel and C. Paul did not return to the village till March 15, 1982, Mrs. C. Thingkhuila, wife of Shri C. Daniel and Mrs. Vangamla, wife of Shri C. Paul went to Phungrei Camp in search of their respective husbands and when they were waiting there, they saw C. Daniel and C. Paul being led away by 4 army jawans towards the West. In the meantime, on a complaint made by Machihan, Shri Joshi, Deputy Commissioner directed Superintendent of Police to make enquiries about the absence of C. Daniel and C. Paul from March 10, 1982. A radiogram message was sent on March 15, 1982 to the Superintendent of Police (East) Ukhrul requesting him to enquire about and ascertain the whereabouts of (1) Roshing, (2) C. Daniel and (3) C. Paul, all of Huining village and four others. The direction given to the Superintendent of Police was to find out the whereabouts of the persons named in the radiogram and to submit his report at an early date. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police submitted his report










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top