1. Writ petition for habeas corpus concerning the police detention of a girl who has since been released. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 626
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N.Venkatachaliah, C.J.I., S.Mohan, A.S.Anand, JJ.
Arvinder Singh Bagga
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 271 of 1993
Date of Decision : 8/3/93
Advocates Appeared: Pundir A.S. : Sodhi R.S.
Advocates:
A.S.PUNDIR, R.S.SODHI
A.S.PUNDIR, R.S.SODHI
A habeas corpus petition can continue as a 'qualified habeas corpus' after the detenu's release to examine the legality of the detention and determine compensation for the violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 as a public law remedy.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Illegal detention - Compensation - Release of detenu - Petition to continue as qualified habeas corpus for examining the legality of the detention and determining whether the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for illegal detention as a public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights, independent of any criminal or civil liability. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed concerning the police custody of an individual. During the pendency of the petition, the individual was released from custody. The court had to determine if the release of the detenu rendered the petition infructuous or if the legal proceedings for the violation of fundamental rights could continue.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the release of the individual does not end the matter. The petition shall continue as one for qualified habeas corpus to examine the legality of the detention and to determine the entitlement to compensation for the violation of fundamental rights under Article 21.
Issues: Whether a habeas corpus petition can continue after the release of the detenu to determine the legality of the detention and the right to compensation as a public law remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a writ petition can be treated as a qualified habeas corpus after the release of the detenu to ensure that a public law remedy is available for the violation of Article 21, which remains distinct from any separate civil or criminal liability.
Result: Petition to continue; respondents directed to file counter-affidavit within two weeks.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Legality of detention and entitlement to compensation for violation of fundamental rights under Article 21. (Para 1 )
3. Release of the detenu does not terminate the matter; the petition continues as qualified habeas corpus to examine legality and compensation for fundamental rights violations. (Para 1 )
4. A habeas corpus petition may proceed as a qualified habeas corpus to determine legality of detention and compensation for Article 21 violations post-release. (Para 1 )
5. Petition continues as qualified habeas corpus; respondents directed to file counter-affidavit; notice against Respondent 3 discharged. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
6. Does the release of a detenu render a habeas corpus petition infructuous?
No, the petition may continue as a qualified habeas corpus to examine the legality of the detention and determine entitlement to compensation for the violation of fundamental rights under Article 21. (Para 1 )
7. Is compensation for illegal detention under Article 21 available alongside other liabilities?
Yes, compensation as a public law remedy for the violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 is available independently of any criminal or civil liability. (Para 1 )
(1) WE have heard learned counsel on both sides. At the time the petition was moved, the girl was in police custody. She has since been released. But, we are afraid, this cannot be the end of the matter. The writ petition shall continue as one for qualified habeas corpus for examining the legality of the detention for determining whether the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the illegal detention as a public law remedy for violation of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, quite apart from criminal or civil liability which may be pursued in the ordinary course.
(2) THE respondents are directed to file a counter-affidavit within two weeks,
(3) AT the request of.Mr R.S. Sodhi. learned counsel for the petitioner, notice against Respondent 3 is discharged.
