District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

"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

Latest Legal News