On January 17, the Supreme Court made a significant intervention in a habeas corpus case, expressing deep concern over the delayed and seemingly indifferent approach adopted by the Karnataka High Court. The case revolved around the detention of a 25-year-old woman, referred to as 'M,' by her parents, prompting the Supreme Court to address the matter urgently.
The woman had been taken from Dubai by her parents against her will, disrupting her life and aspirations in the process. The petitioner, identified as 'K,' who had been studying with M in Dubai and shared a relationship with her, sought legal recourse by filing a habeas corpus petition in the Karnataka High Court. His grievance was centered around the forceful removal of M by her parents and her subsequent illegal detention in Bengaluru.
The High Court, upon receiving the petition, issued notice and called for a status report. M's statement was recorded, revealing that she was taken from Dubai under the false pretext of her grandfather's ill-health. She disclosed being coerced into an arranged marriage against her wishes. The court, deeming the matter necessary, held a Chamber hearing involving the detenu (M) and her family members.
However, despite the gravity of the situation and the urgency inherent in habeas corpus matters, the Karnataka High Court displayed a concerning lack of expediency. The case was adjourned on multiple occasions, with the tentative listing date pushed to April 10, 2025. This sluggish pace prompted the Supreme Court to step in, issuing notice on January 3, 2024, and summoning M for a hearing.
In a bid to comprehend the complexities of the case and the wishes of the parties involved, the Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, conducted independent Chambers interactions on the day of the hearing. This involved conversations with M, her parents, and the parents of petitioner K.
During these interactions, M expressed a strong desire to be with K's parents and return to Dubai to pursue her career. She detailed the challenges she faced under her parents' custody, such as missing job interviews and being unable to make decisions about her life. M's parents, on the other hand, claimed not to oppose their daughter's wishes but emphasized the importance of her achieving financial stability before making life-altering decisions.
Taking into account the nature of the case and the inputs from all parties involved, the Bench concluded that M was a highly qualified and mature woman capable of making informed decisions about her life. The Court emphasized that a person of her age and maturity should not be compelled to act against her wishes.
The Supreme Court expressed its dismay at the High Court's failure to pass appropriate orders promptly. This delay had not only resulted in the prolonged illegal detention of M but had also led to multiple trips by K and his parents from Dubai to Bengaluru to ensure her well-being.
In its final ruling, the Supreme Court declared M's continued detention by her parents as illegal. The Court ordered her immediate release and directed M's parents to hand over her documents, including her passport, within 48 hours. A reporting compliance deadline was set for January 22, 2024, to ensure that the orders were duly followed.
This case underscores the critical importance of timely and sensitive handling of habeas corpus petitions, especially when the liberty of an individual is at stake. The Supreme Court's intervention not only rectified the injustice faced by M but also sent a strong message regarding the imperative nature of expeditious action in matters concerning personal liberty.
TAGS: Supreme Court Habeas Corpus Karnataka High Court Detention Liberty Urgency.
