Ratios:
a. A practicing advocate has no locus standi to file habeas corpus petition as a petitioner.
b. Every legal practitioner is an officer of the court and should aid in the cause of justice.

ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

The petitioner is the practising advocate and she has filed this petition seeking the release of her client Sundaramoorthy, S/o.Vediyappan, who is alleged to have been illegally detained by the respondents.

2. On behalf of the respondents, a strong objection regarding the maintainability of this petition has been raised on the ground that the Advocate engaged by the detenu, since cannot be called as a friend or relative of the detenu and that the Advocate being the Officer of the Court, the petitioner, a practising Advocate, cannot enter into the shoes of her client and she cannot be a substitute for her client. It has further been submitted on the part of the respondents that the detenu is an under trial prisoner and he is in judicial custody in the cases, wherein he is an accused and there is no illegal detention, as has been submitted on the part of the petitioner and would pray to dismiss this petition.

3. Prior to entering into discussion of other aspects of the case, the legal question put forth on the part of the respondents, regarding the very maintainability of this petition, filed by the petitioner, a practising advocate, on behalf of her client, needs to be discussed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the powers of the Court in matters of detention are very wide and anybody, who has a concern for the detenu, can file a Habeas Corpus Petition. Much has been argued and emphasised on the part of the petitioner that in the matters of Habeas Corpus, strict rules of pleading should not be followed and that such Habeas Corpus petition can be filed by anybody and therefore, this Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the petitioner, a practising advocate, for the release of her client, is very well maintainable. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in SMT.ICCHU DEVI CHORARIA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [AIR 1980 SC 1983], wherein it has been held as follows:

"In case of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the practice evolved by Supreme Court is not to follow strict rules of pleading nor place undue emphasis on the question as to on whom the burden of proof lies. Even a postcard written by a detenu from jail has been sufficient to activise the Court into examining the legality of detention. The Supreme Court has consistently shown great anxiety for personal liberty and refused to throw out a petition merely on the ground that it does not disclose a prima facie case invalidating the order of detention. Whenever a petition for a writ of habeas corpus has come up before the Supreme Court it has almost invariably issued a rule calling upon the detaining authority to justify the detention. Once the rule is issued it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards by the law have been scrupulously observed and the citizen is not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law. Where large masses of people are poor, illiterate and ignorant and access to the courts is not easy on account of lack of financial resources, it would be most unreasonable to insist that the petitioner should set out clearly and specifically the grounds on which he challenges the order of detention and make out a prima facie case in support of those grounds before a rule is issued or to hold that the detaining authority should not be liable to do anything more than just meet the specific grounds of challenge put forward by the petitioner in the petition. The burden of showing that the detention is in accordance with the procedure established by law has always been placed by the Court on the detaining authority because Article 21 of the Constitution provides in clear and explicit terms that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law."

5. There cannot be any doubt regarding the above proposition la