Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka 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