For Habeas Corpus, illegal detention needs to be proved: Supreme Court on plea for release of live-in partner from parents' custody

The Supreme Court on Monday noted that for the maintainability of a Habeas Corpus petition, it is mandatory that the aspect of illegal detention of the concerned person is proved (Kailas Natarajan v. District Police Chief)..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI), SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian remarked that a woman who is mentally unwell and in the custody of her parents cannot be construed as illegal detention. ."Custody is different than illegal detention. Finding of illegal detention is sine qua non for maintainability of Habeas Corpus plea," CJI Bobde said..The Bench was hearing a plea by a 42-year-old spiritual practitioner who approached the Supreme Court challenging a Kerala High Court judgment of January 20 which dismissed his Habeas Corpus plea seeking release of his 21-year-old partner. .Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for the petitioner argued that under law there was no aspect where in a adult could be put in custody unless the mental health of the person is inquired into. ."When an adult person says they are in illegal detention, then he/she has to be released. Adult can never be in the custody of another adult. There is no such law. Custody of parents is based on total fact that she is mentally ill. She is a gold medallist. Experts can arrive at such a conclusion, courts cannot arrive at such a conclusion. Please look at the Mental health act. They take custody to be legal only because she is mentally ill?" argued Sankaranarayanan..However disagreeing with the senior lawyer, CJI stated there was no case of illegal detention made out from the High Court judgment in this case. ."Where is the finding of illegal detention. It is obvious that finding of illegal detention is sine qua non for maintainability of Habeas Corpus plea. I think there is a communication gap between us. Mental illness is one thing and illegal detention of the woman. She is in custody of parents. Custody is different than illegal detention," said CJI Bobde. .The Court eventually allowed the petitioner to approach the High Court so as to get a conclusive finding on whether or not there is illegal detention. "Petitioner allowed to approach High Court for a finding on this aspect," the Court said. .The High Court had dismissed the Habeas Corpus plea of the petitioner based on the finding that the woman was not capable of taking a decision on her own.This conclusion itself was based on an interaction which the Bench had with the woman during which the woman, as per the Bench, showed signs of vulnerability occasioned by mental disturbance..We observe that from our interaction with the subject the suggestion was of a vulnerability occasioned by mental disturbance, which persuaded us to refuse invocation of the extra ordinary remedy under Article 226," the High Court had held.It had also concluded that there were no signs of the two ever having lived together despite claims by them of a live-in relationship. There was no sign of her parents illegally taking her away. On the other hand, the petitioner himself was married and had two children, the High Court had observed.The High Court had also recorded that it had tried to persuade the woman to interact with a psychiatrist or a psychoanalyst so that the Bench could get an expert opinion. However, she refused point blank, the Court said..The High Court had also distinguished this case from the facts that led up to the Supreme Court’s notable Shafin Jahan (Hadiya) judgment. In that case, the woman had married a person and converted of her own free will, while here despite a claim of a live-in relationship, there was nothing on record that demonstrated as such, the High Court stated. .The Court had also adverted to a report on petitioner's antecedents which divulged details of a prior child sexual offence case he was supposedly accused of, but his name was removed from the list of accused after the girl in question retracted her statement.His widowed mother, who lives on the ground floor of his house, reportedly expressed to the police her disapproval and suspicion of her son’s activities or so-called spiritual life..Thus, after considering its own conclusions regarding the woman’s mental state after interacting with her, as also her parents’ account of obsessive behaviour and hysteria, the High Court had deemed her custody with her parents to be the best in the circumstances.