SITARAM YECHURY V. UNION OF INDIA 2019

SITARAM YECHURY V. UNION OF INDIA 2019

CORAM
Hon’ble the Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

FACTS
 This case is also very famous by the name of habeas corpus case.
 There was a ban imposed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir right after the abrogation of the
Article 370 of the constitution. This resulted into a lockdown.
 Different political leaders and non-political citizens were detained since August 5 th 2019. The
Central government had taken away the special status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
 The petitioner, Mr. Sitaram Yechury, General Secretory of the Communist Party of India, had
filed a habeas corpus petition stating that after all his attempts, he is unable to enquire about
the well-being of one of his colleague and friend Mr. Mr. Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami who
is a member of the party and elected member of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative
Assembly. This happened because he was refused to get entry into the State.
 He challenged the illegal detention of Mr. Tarigami.
 The petitioner stated that his friend and colleague party member was not in a good health
condition. Hence, he filed an application seeking orders from the Court to bring Mr. Tarigami
to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (A.I.I.M.S), New Delhi for better medical
treatment.

ISSUE
 Whether his detention was constitutionally valid?
 Whether his detention was violation of the fundamental rights of a person?
 Whether the hon’ble Court will permit the petitioner to go to Jammu and Kashmir to meet Mr.
Tarigami?

ARGUMENTS
1) BY THE PETIONER
a) The petitioner filed a habeas corpus writ petition in the Supreme Court to challenge the
illegality and constitutional validity of the detention imposed on Mohammed Yousuf
Tarigami. Tarigami happens to be the leader of his party as well.
b) The petitioner also stated that his friend and colleague party member Mr. Tarigami was not
well physically and needs a proper medical treatment as soon as possible.

2) BY THE RESPONDENT
a) Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General stated that Mr. Tarigami’s health is being monitored
regularly and he is in all good health. He clearly objected Sitaram Yechury’s plea. Further, he
added that Tarigami has been provided with Z category security and hence, he is absolutely
safe and for the same reason, no other danger can occur.

JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court before passing any final order in this writ petition had asked the petitioner
whether he would like to visit his friend Mr. Tarigami in Jammu and Kashmir under the orders of the
Court, so as to check upon his welfare and good health; to see whether at present he needs any special
medical treatment according to the medical consultancy.
With this consideration, the Court permitted the petitioner to travel to Jammu and Kashmir for the
aforesaid purpose and no other. The Supreme Court made it clear that if the petitioner is found to be
involved in any other act, omission or commission sace and except what has been indicated above i.e.,
to meet his friend and colleague party, member and to enquire about his well being and health
condition, it will be constructed to be a violation of this Court’s order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this WP (Crl.) 229/2019 stage, undertakes that the petitioner will
go to Jammu & Kashmir only for the purpose specified in the present order. The Court directed Mr.
Imtiaz, Senior Superintendent of Police, Security in the State of Jammu & Kashmir to facilitate the
travel and help the petitioner in locating the whereabouts of Mr. Tarigami, the petitioner’s friend and
colleague party member, if required. No sooner the petitioner comes back to Delhi, he will file a
report supported by an affidavit in connection with the purpose of the visit as indicated in this order.
However, no justification was given to validate the detention imposed by the Central Government.

CONCLUSION
Habeas Corpus means “you may have the body” and requires a person under arrest to be brought
before a judge or into court to secure the person’s release unless lawful grounds are shown for their
detention. After the abrogation of Article 370, the Supreme Court has heard writs of habeas corpus
concerning the detention of political and non-political persons in Kashmir. In the present case, the
apex court directed the government of Jammu and Kashmir to uplift the imposition placed on Mr.
Yechury and asked them to allow him to meet his colleague, Mr. Tarigami. The Supreme Court even
allowed the Jamia Millia Islamia University student to visit his family in Anantnag.

Writs are written orders from the Supreme Court or High Court that commands constitutional
remedies for the citizens of India against the violation of their fundamental rights. There are different
kinds of writs for different facts and circumstances, these are - habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,
quo warranto, certiorari. The Indian Constitution has guaranteed the right to move the apex court i.e.,
the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III,
under Article 32. This gives power to the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of rights,
whereas the High Court has the same power which has been enlisted under Article 226.
Habeas Corpus literally means to produce the body. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order
demanding that a public official (such as a warden) deliver an imprisoned individual to the court and
show a valid reason for that person's detention. The judge may grant relief depending upon the
provided evidences, such as –
 Release from prison
 Reduction in the sentence
 An order halting illegal conditions of confinement
 A declaration of rights

RELATED CASE LAW
Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar
The bench ruled that detention orders can be challenged through a writ of habeas corpus even in a
situation where an emergency may have been imposed or where law and order are cited to detain a
person if the detention order was passed in a mala fide manner or was otherwise invalid.