text: The Writ of Habeas Corpus is a fundamental legal safeguard against arbitrary
  detention, ensuring that no individual is deprived of liberty without due
  process of law. This article examines the historical origins, constitutional
  foundations, and significant judicial interpretations of the Writ of Habeas
  Corpus in India. Emphasizing its role in protecting individual freedoms, the
  article delves into landmark cases that have shaped the writ's application and
  underscores its enduring relevance in upholding the principles of justice and
  rule of law.
  The Writ of Habeas Corpus, derived from the Latin term meaning "that to have the
  body," is an essential legal instrument aimed at securing the release of
  individuals unlawfully detained. Originating in the 39th clause of the Magna
  Carta in 1215, this writ serves as a vital check against the abuse of power by
  the state, ensuring that detentions are conducted in accordance with established
  legal procedures. In the Indian context, the writ is enshrined in Article 32 and
  Article 226 of the Constitution, reflecting its importance in safeguarding the
  fundamental rights of citizens.
  Historical Background and Constitutional Provisions
  The Magna Carta's 39th clause laid the groundwork for the Writ of Habeas Corpus,
  establishing that no individual shall be detained unlawfully. In India, the writ
  is rooted in Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution. Article 20 provides
  protection in respect of conviction for offenses, Article 21 guarantees the
  right to life and personal liberty, and Article 22 ensures protection against
  arbitrary arrest and detention. The writ can be invoked when detentions are not
  in accordance with law, do not follow due procedure, are based on invalid laws
  infringing upon fundamental rights, or exceed legislative authority.
  - A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521:
  Known as the 'Habeas Corpus Case,' the Supreme Court held that during the suspension of Article 21 by a Presidential Order under Article 359, detainees could not challenge their detention through a writ petition. However, this decision was overturned by the 44th Amendment to the Constitution, ensuring that even during emergencies, the right to life and liberty under Article 21 cannot be suspended.
  - Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1979) 1 SCR 392:
  In this case, solitary confinement of prisoners Sunil Batra and Charles Sobhraj was challenged as a violation of Articles 14, 19, 20, and 21. The Court treated their letters as writ petitions and held that the Writ of Habeas Corpus could be used not only for releasing unlawfully detained individuals but also for protecting them from inhumane treatment within jails.
  - Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling  RD-SC 165:
  A prominent Naxalite leader, Kanu Sanyal, was detained without trial. The Supreme Court held that the production of the detained person's body before the Court was not necessary for hearing and disposing of a writ petition under Article 32, thereby streamlining the process of addressing unlawful detentions.
  - Bhim Singh v. State of J & K AIR 1986 SC 494:
  Bhim Singh, an MLA, was unlawfully detained, preventing him from attending the State Legislative Assembly. The Supreme Court awarded him Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the violation of his constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21, reinforcing the writ's role in upholding individual freedoms.
  The Writ of Habeas Corpus stands as a bulwark against the misuse of state power,
  emphasizing the judiciary's role in protecting individual rights. The cases
  discussed illustrate the writ's flexibility and its capacity to adapt to various
  scenarios, whether it be protecting prisoners from mistreatment or ensuring
  swift judicial review of detentions. The evolution of judicial interpretation,
  particularly post-44th Amendment, underscores the judiciary's commitment to
  safeguarding fundamental rights, even during emergencies.
  The Writ of Habeas Corpus remains a cornerstone of personal liberty and the rule
  of law. By providing a swift mechanism for challenging unlawful detentions, it
  ensures that the state respects the fundamental rights enshrined in the
  Constitution. The judiciary's proactive stance in interpreting and applying the
  writ highlights its enduring significance in a democratic society. As legal
  frameworks evolve, the Writ of Habeas Corpus will continue to serve as a vital
  protector of individual freedoms, embodying the principles of justice and