Editing Habeas corpus (section)

===India===
In the [[India|Republic of India]], the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] and [[High courts of India|High Courts]] possess the authority to issue a writ of ''habeas corpus'', as granted by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, respectively.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part |url=https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-32-remedies-for-enforcement-of-rights-conferred-by-this-part/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230403082113/https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-32-remedies-for-enforcement-of-rights-conferred-by-this-part/ |archive-date=3 April 2023 |website=Constitution of India}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs |url=https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-226-power-of-high-courts-to-issue-certain-writs/ |website=Constitution of India}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|text=(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by ([[Fundamental rights in India|Part III]]) is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of ''habeas corpus'', mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by ([[Fundamental rights in India|Part III]]).|multiline=True|source=[[Fundamental rights in India|Part III]], Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by ([[Fundamental rights in India|Part III]])|title=[[Constitution of India]]}}{{Blockquote|text=(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of ''habeas corpus'', mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.|title=[[Constitution of India]]|source=Part VI, Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.}}

On 9 December 1948, during a session of the [[Constituent Assembly of India|Constituent Assembly]], H.V. Kamath, a member, suggested the removal of specific references to writs in Article 32, expressing concern that such references could restrict judges from establishing new types of writs in the future, while [[B. R. Ambedkar|Dr. B.R. Ambedkar]], the Chairperson of the Drafting Committee, emphasized the significance of retaining references to the writs. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar noted that writs, including ''habeas corpus'', are already part of the Indian legal framework, but the existing writs are vulnerable to modifications through legislative changes, whereby the legislature, particularly with a strong majority, can amend the relevant laws, potentially leading to the suspension of writs like ''habeas corpus''. However, following the Constitution's enactment, which includes explicit references to writs, these writs cannot be easily nullified by any legislative body because the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to issue them.<ref name="vol7">{{Citation |last=Constituent Assembly of India |title=Constituent Assembly Debates: 4th November 1948 to 8th January 1949 |url=https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/762996/1/cad_04-11-1948.pdf |volume=7 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201129222659/https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/762996/1/cad_04-11-1948.pdf |archive-date=29 November 2020 |author-link=Constituent Assembly of India}}</ref><ref name="9dec1948">{{Cite web |title=Constituent Assembly Debates: 09 Dec 1948 |url=https://www.constitutionofindia.net/debates/09-dec-1948/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230403082357/https://www.constitutionofindia.net/debates/09-dec-1948/ |archive-date=3 April 2023 |access-date=2023-04-03 |website=constitutionofindia.net}}</ref>

The Indian judiciary, in a catena of cases, has effectively resorted to the writ of ''habeas corpus'' to secure release of a person from illegal detention.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Baxi |first1=Pratiksha |date=April 2009 |edition=Reprint 2012 |title=Habeas Corpus Juridical Narratives of Sexual Governance |url=http://www.jnu.ac.in/cslg/workingPaper/09-Habeus%20%28Pratiksha%20Baxi%29.pdf |department=Centre for the Study of Law and Governance |publisher=Jawaharlal Nehru University |place=New Delhi |access-date=23 November 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161006125237/http://www.jnu.ac.in/cslg/workingPaper/09-Habeus%20%28Pratiksha%20Baxi%29.pdf |archive-date=6 October 2016}}</ref> The Indian judiciary has dispensed with the traditional doctrine of ''[[locus standi]]'', so that if a detained person is not in a position to file a petition, it can be moved on his behalf by any other person. The scope of ''habeas'' relief has expanded in recent times by actions of the Indian judiciary.<ref>{{cite web |title=Writ of Habeas Corpus for securing liberty |url=http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/wha.htm |access-date=2010-08-30 |website=Legalserviceindia.com |publisher=ABS-CBN News}}</ref>

Usually, in most other jurisdictions, the writ is directed at police authorities. The extension to non-state authorities has its grounds in two cases: the 1898 [[King's Bench Division|Queen's Bench]] case of ''[[Ex Parte]] [[Proctor#Disciplinary functions|Daisy Hopkins]]'', wherein the [[Proctor#Cambridge University|Proctor of Cambridge University]] did detain and arrest Hopkins without his jurisdiction, and Hopkins was released,<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Exparte, Hopkins (Daisy)|reporter=56 JP 262; 61 LJQB 240|year=1891}}</ref> and that of ''[[Somerset v Stewart]]'', in which an African slave whose master had moved to London was freed by action of the writ. For example, in October 2009, the Karnataka High Court heard a ''habeas corpus'' petition filed by the parents of a girl who married a Muslim boy from Kannur district and was allegedly confined in a ''madrasa'' in Malapuram town.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/love-jihad-court-unhappy-with-probe/article169724.ece |title='Love Jihad': Court unhappy with probe |date=27 October 2009 |newspaper=The Hindu}}</ref> In 1976, the ''habeas'' writ was used in the [[Rajan case]], a student victim of torture in local police custody during the nationwide [[The Emergency (India)|Emergency]] in India. On 12&nbsp;March 2014, [[Subrata Roy]]'s counsel approached the Chief Justice moving a ''habeas corpus'' petition. It was also filed by the [[Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party|Panthers Party]] to protest the imprisonment of [[Anna Hazare]], a social activist.