Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee 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

Latest Legal News