Habeas corpus next-friend standing requires bona fide interest; suppression of facts and falsehood amount to abuse of process.

Habeas corpus proceedings filed through a next friend require bona fide action and a legally recognisable interest; a stranger cannot maintain such petitions as of right. Where material facts are suppressed, allegations are contradictory or unverified, and the claimed detention is negatived by the record, the proceedings amount to abuse of process and may justify dismissal with exemplary costs. Matters allocated by roster remain under the Chief Justice's administrative control, so transfer or summary disposal by a Division Bench without proper authorisation or fair hearing is inconsistent with judicial propriety. Extraordinary cost and reward directions must also be proportionate; ancillary directions may be modified, while a criminal investigation may proceed independently in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Division Bench's transfer and disposal of the habeas corpus petition without proper notice and without administrative authorization was valid; (ii) whether the writ petitions were liable to fail for abuse of process, suppression of material facts, and want of locus standi; (iii) whether the costs and ancillary directions in the High Court's order could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the Division Bench's transfer and disposal of the habeas corpus petition without proper notice and without administrative authorization was valid.

Analysis: The applicable roster and listing rules placed habeas corpus matters directed against private custody before a Single Judge, while the power to allocate or transfer matters remained with the Chief Justice as master of the roster. The High Court Division Bench acted without any order from the Chief Justice or the senior administrative Judge transferring the matter. The record also did not clearly show that the appellant received a fair opportunity of hearing before the writ petition was disposed of.

Conclusion: The transfer and summary disposal were not in consonance with judicial administrative propriety and the appellant was not given adequate hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions were liable to fail for abuse of process, suppression of material facts, and want of locus standi.

Analysis: The petitions were founded on contradictory and unverified allegations, while material facts such as the earlier dismissal of a similar writ petition and the true whereabouts and identity of the alleged detenues were withheld. Neither next friend had any demonstrable relationship with the persons on whose behalf they acted, and the pleadings and subsequent statements of the alleged detenues themselves negatived the claim of illegal detention. A stranger cannot, as of right, invoke habeas corpus as next friend in the absence of bona fide and legally recognizable interest or disability.

Conclusion: Both writ petitions constituted abuse of the process of court and the petitioners lacked locus standi to maintain them.

Issue (iii): Whether the costs and ancillary directions in the High Court's order could be sustained.

Analysis: In the circumstances of a habeas corpus proceeding founded on falsehood, the extraordinary directions for massive costs, reward payment, and other ancillary orders were disproportionate and unjustified. The Court also found no basis for treating the police as deserving a reward for performance of ordinary official duties. The investigation directed by the High Court, however, was allowed to continue in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The impugned cost and ancillary directions were modified and could not be sustained in their original form.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by setting aside the unsustainable portions of the High Court's order, affirming dismissal of both writ petitions with exemplary costs, and permitting the criminal investigation to proceed independently in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A person invoking habeas corpus as next friend must act bona fide with a legally recognizable interest, and proceedings founded on suppression of material facts and falsehood amount to abuse of the process of court, justifying dismissal and exemplary costs.

---