Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

"High Court Rejects Habeas Corpus Petition: Refuses to Force Medical Tests Based on Alleged Black Magic"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on October 9, 2023, the Gujarat High Court has rejected a Habeas Corpus petition seeking the production and medical examination of two individuals alleged to have been illegally confined. The Court declined to force medical tests based on vague allegations of practicing black magic, emphasizing the importance of individual choice and personal liberty.

In a detailed oral order, the Bench, comprising HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI, issued directions for medical evaluation after examining a pen-drive containing what they described as "shocking and disturbing" information. However, the corpuses resisted admission for observation and were taken to the police station and hospital without undergoing any tests.

The judgment highlighted that the assessment of mental condition cannot be forcibly imposed, especially when there is no concrete evidence of mental instability. The Court noted that one of the corpuses had achieved academic distinction by graduating with honors in English from M.S. University.

In the words of the Court, "We do not find that both the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 suffer from any type of mental disorder or disability. The practicing of black magic can be a personal choice, and this Court cannot delve into such issues in a habeas corpus petition."

The Bench further clarified that the corpuses could not be compelled to reside with or accompany the petitioners against their wishes, nor could they be directed to undergo medical tests to ascertain their mental health.

As a result, the Habeas Corpus petition was dismissed, and the notice was discharged.

This judgment underscores the principle of personal liberty and the limitations of seeking medical evaluation without substantial evidence, setting an important precedent in habeas corpus cases.

The representing advocates in this case were JITENDRA J PANDYA, MR. KISHORE PRAJAPATI for the Applicants, MR. JB DASTOOR for the Respondents, and MR. H K PATEL as the Additional Public Prosecutor.

Date of Decision: October 9, 2023

Padmaben Rajendrabhai Vyas vs. State of Gujarat

Similar News