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.