Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to direct the respondents to release the alleged detenue, his daughter, from the illegal custody of Respondent 6, Manjari Nehru Kaul, J., stated that the alleged detenue, an adult woman aged 30 years, had unequivocally declared that she did not wish to return to her father (Petitioner). The Court stated that the identity and autonomy of an adult woman were not defined by her relationships or familial obligations. The notion that her father, or anyone else, could impose their will upon her based on a perceived social role was a direct affront to the right of equality and personal liberty enshrined in our Constitution.
The Court stated that while the petitioner’s concerns were understandable, they could not override the alleged detenue’s constitutional rights to personal liberty. Thus, there was no ground made out for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the present petition.
Background
The Court while issuing notice of motion passed an order, and in compliance with that order, the alleged detenue was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on 17-08-2024, and her statement was recorded. The respondent stated that the alleged detenue, in her recorded statement had stated that she did not wish to return to her father, i.e. the petitioner, due to continuous physical harassment by her brothers. The alleged detenue stated that her brothers were pressuring her to return to her matrimonial home and live with her abusive husband, from whom she had separated.
The respondent had also submitted that the alleged detenue had further stated that while getting her statement recorded that she was presently residing separately from both her father, the petitioner, and her husband, out of her own free will without any coercion or pressure. Furthermore, the Court before which the statement was made by the alleged detenue had also confirmed that there was no external influence on her decision.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that writ of habeas corpus was one of the most powerful tools designed to protect individual liberty against illegal detention. Its core object was to ensure that no person was deprived of their freedom without legitimate cause. When a petition for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus was brought before the Court, it was tasked with examining whether the alleged detenue had been illegally detained. The ambit of this writ was confined strictly to assessing the legality of the detention, and thus, the Court must act within this defined scope.
The Court stated that the alleged detenue, an adult woman aged 30 years, had unequivocally declared that she did not wish to return to her father. The Court carefully considered the alleged detenue’s statement and stated that the essence of the writ of habeas corpus was to uphold the freedom and autonomy of individuals, ensuring that no person was detained against their will without lawful cause.
The Court stated that it was imperative to emphasize that once the alleged detenue, who was a fully mature adult, capable of making her own decisions, had clearly expressed her desire to live independently, this Court could not override her will. The writ of habeas corpus was a constitutional mechanism to protect the personal liberty of an individual, and the Court was constitutionally bound to uphold this right. The Court stated that it could not, and should not, compel an adult to return to the custody of another, even if that person was a well-meaning parent.
The Court stated that the role of the Court was not to enforce social norms or morality but to uphold the principles of constitutional morality. The petitioner’s contention that a father would be a better custodian of an adult woman than she herself is, was not only antiquated but also ran contrary to the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. The Court stated that it was crucial to reaffirm that an adult woman, like any other citizen, possessed the right to be treated as an independent and autonomous individual, free from coercion and undue influence.
The Court stated that the identity and autonomy of an adult woman were not defined by her relationships or familial obligations. The Constitution safeguards her right to live freely and make her own choices, without external interference. The notion that her father, or anyone else, could impose their will upon her based on a perceived social role was a direct affront to the right of equality and personal liberty enshrined in our Constitution.
Therefore, the Court stated that it must ensure that the alleged detenue’s rights were protected, and her autonomy was respected, without yielding to extraneous considerations. The Court stated that while the petitioner’s concerns were understandable, they could not override the alleged detenue’s constitutional rights to personal liberty. Thus, there was no ground made out for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the present petition.
[X v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 10032, decided on 28-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Malkit Kaur, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab; Manish Bansal, P.P., U.T., Chandigarh with Shubham Mangla, Advocate.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
