Habeas corpus challenge to remand and emergency hospital shifting in judicial custody

A habeas corpus petition against a remand order is maintainable only where the remand is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction, or passed mechanically; on that basis, the challenge was confined to examining alleged absolute illegality in the remand. The detenue, while in judicial custody, was also permitted to be shifted from the Government hospital to a private hospital of choice for emergent cardiac treatment at his own expense, because the medical bulletin showed serious cardiac disease and advised bypass surgery. The respondents were allowed to have him examined by a specialist panel.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a habeas corpus petition is maintainable against an order of remand only when the remand is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction, or passed mechanically; and (ii) whether the detenu, while in judicial custody, could be shifted from the Government hospital to a private hospital of choice for emergent cardiac treatment.

Issue (i): Whether a habeas corpus petition is maintainable against an order of remand only when the remand is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction, or passed mechanically.

Analysis: The governing principle was taken from the settled law that a habeas corpus petition will lie against a remand order only where the remand is absolutely illegal, suffers from lack of jurisdiction, or is passed in a wholly mechanical manner. In such situations, the detention can be challenged despite the existence of a remand order. The petition was therefore entertained on the limited question whether the alleged non-compliance amounted to absolute illegality.

Conclusion: The habeas corpus petition was maintainable only to the limited extent of examining whether the remand suffered from absolute illegality or lack of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the detenu, while in judicial custody, could be shifted from the Government hospital to a private hospital of choice for emergent cardiac treatment.

Analysis: The medical bulletin disclosed serious cardiac disease and advised emergent bypass surgery. The Court declined to disregard the Government doctors' assessment and held that the detenu remained in judicial custody, but the question before it was confined to the place of treatment. Since the matter involved urgent medical care and the detenu sought treatment at a hospital of choice at his own expense, the prayer for shifting was accepted. At the same time, the respondents were permitted to constitute a specialist panel to examine the detenu and his treatment at the private hospital.

Conclusion: The detenu was permitted to be shifted to the private hospital for emergency treatment, with liberty to the respondents to have him examined by a specialist panel.

Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed only to the extent of medical shifting relief, while the main habeas corpus challenge remained pending for final consideration.

---