Administrative lawHabeas corpusSupreme Court of India

Kanu Sanyal v District Magistrate Darjeeling

AIR 1974 Supreme Court 51019731 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of a detainee held at a distant location. Question arose whether the court must order physical production before deciding the petition.
Issue
Must the court order physical production of the detainee in every habeas corpus proceeding?
Held
Physical production is directory, not mandatory. The court can examine the legality of detention without requiring the detainee to be brought before it where production is impracticable or unnecessary.
Principle
Habeas corpus focuses on legality of detention; physical production of the detainee in every case is not mandatory.
Cite this

Facts

  • Habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of a detainee held at a distant location
  • Question arose whether the court must order physical production before deciding the petition

Issue

  1. Must the court order physical production of the detainee in every habeas corpus proceeding?

Held

  • Physical production is directory, not mandatory. The court can examine the legality of detention without requiring the detainee to be brought before it where production is impracticable or unnecessary.

Ratio decidendi

Habeas corpus is concerned with the legality of detention, not with physical production. Where production is impracticable, the court proceeds on the record and affidavits.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Deploy in ADM-5.1 to show the writ focuses on legality, not procedure. Key point: production is directory.

Cite this

Citation

Kanu Sanyal v District Magistrate Darjeeling AIR 1974 Supreme Court 510

Reported: AIR 1974 Supreme Court 510. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.