The case of a 40-something man, married with 2 daughters seeking to free a 21-year-old who he claims to be his spiritual live-in partner from her parents ‘illegal detention’ has become a moderately famous issue. What started off as a writ of Habeas Corpus filed in the High Court of Kerala has now progressed into a petition filed in the Supreme Court on the same grounds due to the dismissal of the plea at the Kerala High Court.
Facts
The petition was first filed before the Kerala High Court as a writ of Habeas Corpus. A spiritual guru contented that his 21-year-old spiritual-live-in was subjected to physical cruelty and mental torture by her parents for practising sannyasa and divine yoga with the petitioner. The petitioner also claimed she was put in illegal detention. The Kerala High Court quashed the petition as they there was no adequate proof produced. The Kerala High Court had also interacted with the detenu and stated that “We were not satisfied that the subject is capable of making a decision; especially by the manner in which she interacted with us.” The petitioner then filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision.
Analysis
The Supreme Court based its decision on the term’s custody and detention. If the child was in the custody of parents then, the writ of Habeas Corpus did not have any merit. The petitioner’s argument of that a major cannot be kept in custody was rejected by the Court when the statement “We are looking for a case of illegal detention. We are looking for a finding whether she has been illegally detained in her house. We want you to go to the HC and find out whether she is illegally detained or in the custody of her parents,” was made. The Supreme Court also raised concerns on the girl’s mental health by stating “Mental illness is another aspect. We see the finding that she is in the custody of her parents. There is a doubt about her mental condition.”
Supreme Court Decision
The bench comprising of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian drew a stark contrast between the concept of custody and illegal detention. The Supreme Court held for the validation of the writ of Habeas Corpus it was necessary that the grounds of illegal detention be proved. The Supreme Court held that if the petitioner could produce adequate proof of illegal detention, they could approach the High Court on those grounds again. This was based on the fact that the High Court did not have any categorical findings that validated the claims of illegal detention and considering the fact that illegal detention was an element in the filing of a petition of Habeas Corpus.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgement from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also contribute blog, articles, story tip, judgment and many more and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
