Issue
Arguments Of Petitioner
Reasoning
Decision
Gunupati Keshavram Reddy
v.
Nafisul Hasan & The State Of Uttar Pradesh
(Supreme Court Of India)
Writ Petition No. 75 Of 1952 | 18-03-1952
Patanjali Sastri, CJ.
1. This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India complaining that one Sri Homi Dinshaw Mistry is under illegal detention and praying that he be released forthwith. The petition alleges that Sri Mistry was arrested in Bombay on the 11th March 1952 and taken in custody to Lucknow to be produced before the Speaker of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly to answer a charge of breach of privilege. It is further alleged that Sri Mistry was not produced before a Magistrate within twenty four hours of his arrest; but is still kept in detention in the Speakers custody at Lucknow. The Attorney-General admits before us that this allegation is well founded, that is to say, that since his arrest on the 11th March, Sri Mistry has not been produced before a Magistrate; but is still detained in custody. This is a clear breach of the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India which is quite peremptory in its terms:
"No such person shall be detained in Custody beyond the said period without the authority of a Magistrate".
2. In view of the admitted facts it is perfectly clear that this provision of the Constitution has been contravened and the said Mr. Mistry is entitled to his release. The habeas corpus petition therefore succeeds and we direct that Mr. Mistry be released forthwith.
3. (Order communicated by telegram at the expense of the Petitioner).
4. Petition allowed.
1. This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India complaining that one Sri Homi Dinshaw Mistry is under illegal detention and praying that he be released forthwith. The petition alleges that Sri Mistry was arrested in Bombay on the 11th March 1952 and taken in custody to Lucknow to be produced before the Speaker of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly to answer a charge of breach of privilege. It is further alleged that Sri Mistry was not produced before a Magistrate within twenty four hours of his arrest; but is still kept in detention in the Speakers custody at Lucknow. The Attorney-General admits before us that this allegation is well founded, that is to say, that since his arrest on the 11th March, Sri Mistry has not been produced before a Magistrate; but is still detained in custody. This is a clear breach of the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India which is quite peremptory in its terms:
"No such person shall be detained in Custody beyond the said period without the authority of a Magistrate".
2. In view of the admitted facts it is perfectly clear that this provision of the Constitution has been contravened and the said Mr. Mistry is entitled to his release. The habeas corpus petition therefore succeeds and we direct that Mr. Mistry be released forthwith.
3. (Order communicated by telegram at the expense of the Petitioner).
4. Petition allowed.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties ----------
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. PATANJALI SHASTRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.C. MAHAJAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. MUKHERJEA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. DAS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. CHANDRASHEKAR AIYAR
Eq Citation
1954 CRILJ 1704
AIR 1954 SC 636
LQ/SC/1952/19
HeadNote
Constitution of India, Art. 22(2) — Derogation from Art. 22(1) — Detention without production before Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest — Held, a clear breach of Art. 22(2) — Habeas corpus petition allowed
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
