Writ of Habeas Corpus has always been given due signification as an effective method to ensure release of those detained in prison. It’s a swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint or confinement [Secretary of State for Home Affairs v. O’Brien, (1923) AC 603]. It has through ages been ‘jealously maintained’ by Courts as a check upon illegal usurpation of power by Executive.

Writ of Habeas Corpus is an extraordinary remedy which may be granted only on reasonable grounds or probable causes being shown, as was held by this Court in Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1625 and Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling, (1973) 2 SCC 674.

It is well established, in issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus in case of minors, jurisdiction which Court exercises is an inherent jurisdiction as distinct from a statutory jurisdiction conferred by any particular provision in any special statute.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 402 of 2021].

_____

Also see, Nirmala v. Kulwant Singh, [Criminal Appeal No. 2194 of 2022] decided on 03.04.2024.

_____

Like facts in Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, (2019) 7 SCC 42, facts in present case are also peculiar. Court in Nirmala v. Kulwant Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine 758 observed, no hard and fast rule can be laid down for maintainability of a Habeas Corpus Petition in matters of custody of a minor child.

– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Gautam Kumar Das v. NCT of Delhi, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5171 of 2024] decided on 20.08.2024.