Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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