SAPMAWIA versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. AIJAL

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 690 · Decided: 30-07-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: I.D. DUA

Judgment (excerpt)

•'90 
SAPMAWIA 
v. 
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. AIJAL 
July 30, 1970 
[f. D. DUA, J.] 
Constitution of India Article 32-Habeas. corp11s-Co1tu11it111<!nt order 
neither stating the number of days of co1nnzitnient, nq_r in tern1s authorising 
the jail authoritie.f to keep the petitioner, nor givinR reasons-Validity. 
The petitioner, who was accused of certain criminal offences, was in 
jail custody awaiting his trial. 
He applied to the High Court for a writ 
o.f ·habeas corpus. 
On January 22, 1970 the High Court held that th< 
petition \Vas not maintainable because the petitioner was an undertrial 
prisoner 
nwaiting his trial. 
Accordingly the High Court dismissed 
th~ 
plea for a writ of habeas corpus, but directed investigation against the 
petitioner to be completed within two months. 
The petitioner did not 
file appeal against this order, but much later filed a habeas corpus petition 
in the Supreme Court. In its return the State asserted that the investi-
gation was completed by March 20. 1970 and sanction wa•. obtained on 
. May 12, 1970, but no order by a Mll'gistrate authorising th<> petitioner's 
detention in custody was produced. The last order of remand disclosed 
to this Court was of February 2, 1970. 
But this order neither contained 
the period of remand nor did it, in terms, autho(ise the Dibrugarh Jail 
authorities to keep the petitioner in their custody : reasons for keeping 
him in jail custody was also not stated. 
Directing the petitioner's release. 
thi~ :Court : 
HELD : The petitioner's custody in jail was not sho\\'11 to 
b~ in 
accordance with the procedure established by law. 
(i) If, a person has been deprived of his personal liberty in violat1011 
·Of -the .. procetlure .established by law and no cogent ground for declining 
relief-in-- habeas- -corpus proceec:.ings is made out, then this Court has no 
option except to order his release, for personal liberty of the individual 
is highly cherished in our set up giving priority only to the interest of 
the nation and the security of the State. [695 Gl 
During the course of investigation, the order of the remand Magistrate 
under the Code of Criminal Procedure could not extend beyond a term 
of 15 days. 
The State did not show any special law which authorised 
a remand . for longer period in this case. 
Even the order of .the Ht~h 
Court directed the investigation to be 
completed within two 
months. 
These two months expired a long time ago. 
The fact that the charge 
against the petitioner pertains to security of the State and the fact that . 
stringent· ·measures may be necessary on our eastern and north~castcrn 
horders··does not afford sufficient justification for by-passing or violating 
th~ provisions of the Constitution. Executive ex_pediency ~hould not pre-
vail over the rule of law as envis~ged therein, 
For meeting with emer-
gencies the Constitution contains adequate provisions. [694 F. 696 A-Bl 
(ii) The writ of habeas corpus is a orerogative writ by which the cau_,es 
and validity of a detention of a person are investigated by summary pro-
cedure and if tbe authoritv having 'his custody does not satisfy the Tourt 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
I 
F 
G 
H 
SAPMAWIA v. DY. COMMR. (Dua, J.) 
691 
that the deprivation of his ,personal liberty is according to the procedure 
established by law the person is entitled to .his liberty. [695 D] 
(iii) The warrant df commitment should normally remain with 
the 
jail authorities directed to keep the person committed to their custody so 
that they can always satisfy the court, enquiring into the legality of such 
custody, that he has been deprived of his personal liberty according to 
the procedure established by law. 
(iv) The order of release in the case of a person suspected of 
or 
charged with the commission of an offence does not per se amount 
to 
his acquittal or discharge and the authorities are no1, by virtue of 'the 
release only on habeas corpus, deprived of the power to arrest and keep 
him -in custody in accordance with Jaw, for this writ is nor clesigncd to 
interrupt the ordinary administration of criminal law. f695 DJ 
( v) Rule nisi in hab.:as corpus proceedings demands in1mediate atten-
tion and urgent compliance as it concerns the question of liberty of the 
custody, !hat he has be...1 deprived of his pen;onal liberty according to 
subject. 
[Delay in securing papers 
for production 
in this Court 
dis-
approved.] [696 EJ 
ORIGINAL JuR1so1ctION : Writ Petition No. 269 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.