Gunupati Keshavram Reddy vs Nafisul Hasan and State Of U.P

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: supreme-court

Case Number: Writ Petition (civil) 75 of 1952

Decision Date: 18 March 1952

Coram: M.P. SASTRI (CJ), M.C. MAHAJAN, B.K. MUKHERJEA, S.R. DAS, N.C. AIYAR

In the matter of Gunupati Keshavram Reddy versus Nafisul Hasan and the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment on the eighteenth day of March, 1952. The case was recorded as Writ Petition (civil) number 75 of 1952 and was heard before a Bench that included Chief Justice M. P. Sastri together with Justices M. C. Mahajan, B. K. Mukherjea, S. R. Das and N. C. Aiyar. The petitioner, Gunupati Keshavram Reddy, sought relief against the respondents Nafisul Hasan and the State of Uttar Pradesh. The application was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on the grounds that an individual named Sri Homi Dinshaw Mistry was being held in illegal detention and should be released immediately. According to the petition, Sri Mistry had been arrested in Bombay on the eleventh of March, 1952, and subsequently taken to Lucknow where he was placed under the custody of the Speaker of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly to answer a charge of breach of privilege. The petition further alleged that Sri Mistry had not been presented before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours of his arrest, as required by law, and that he remained detained in the Speaker’s custody at Lucknow beyond that period.

The Attorney General conceded before the Court that the allegation regarding the failure to produce Sri Mistry before a Magistrate was correct; he confirmed that since his arrest on the eleventh of March, Sri Mistry had not been taken before a Magistrate and continued to be held in custody. The Court observed that this failure amounted to a clear violation of the mandatory provision of Article 22 paragraph (2) of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be detained in custody beyond the prescribed period without the authority of a Magistrate. In light of the admitted facts, the Court held that the constitutional provision had indeed been contravened and that Sri Mistry was therefore entitled to his immediate release. Consequently, the habeas corpus petition was allowed, and the Court ordered that Sri Mistry be released without delay. The order was communicated by telegram at the expense of the petitioner.