In the case of Haidarsha Abduksha Pir through his son Nizamuddin Haidarsha Pir Versus State of Gujarat [R/LPA/537/2020], the Gujarat HC said that the plea of habeas corpus against preventive detention should be heard. This significant judgement was passed by Honourable the Chief Justice Mr. Vikram Nath and Honourable Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala. The bench preceded by stating that the preventive detention Act restricts citizens’ personal liberty is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution and it is the responsibility of the court to see that the effectiveness of the limited yet ‘crucial safeguards’ accorded in the law of preventive detention, is not waived off in mechanical routine, dull casualness and chill indifference on the part of the authorities entrusted with their application.
The court headed towards the pronouncements regarding the strong sentinel works of judiciary, dictating its impartial and honest works toward every individual of the society. It stated how the court system is inclined towards upholding personal liberty and cherishing the value of mankind. Also the constitution of India provides procedural safeguards to individuals against arbitrariness and atrocities.
They quoted the observations made by:
- the Supreme Court in Rekha vs. State of Tamilnadu Through Secretary to Government & Ors., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244, “the detention order in question only contains ipse dixit regarding the alleged imminent possibility of the accused coming out on bail and there was no reliable material to this effect. Hence, the detention order in question cannot be sustained.”
- drew the attention of the High Court on its administrative side to a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shivshankarlal Gupta & Anr. vs. C.T.A Pillai & Ors., reported in AIR 1976 Bom. 165, “Whenever two interpretations are possible, one leading to anomalous result and the other to rational result, it need not be emphasised that the second must be accepted and the first must be rejected.”
- on its administrative side, to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Basudeva vs. Rex, reported in AIR 1949 All 513., “It has been urged, on behalf of the applicant, that in case the decision is in his favour, he is entitled to costs”
- The attention was also drawn to the “Supreme Court Rules, 2013 framed under Article 145 of the Constitution. Chapter-III thereof provides for the classification of cases. Clause 12 of Chapter-III reads thus: “12. Writ Petition – (i)petition under Article 32 of the Constitution relating to an infringement of a right in Part III of the Constitution in a civil case, other than habeas corpus, shall be registered as Writ Petition (Civil); (ii) petition under Article 32 of the Constitution relating to a criminal matter, including habeas corpus, shall be registered as Writ Petition (Criminal); (iii) petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India relating to public interest litigation shall be registered as Writ Petition(PIL). It may be either civil or criminal; (iv) petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking transfer of a case relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and shall be registered as Writ Petition (Tr.). It may be either civil or criminal;”
