Case Title: Sitaram Yechury v. Union of India
The state of Jammu and Kashmir was shut off from the Internet and communication services on August 5, 2019, as a result of the repeal of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Several political and non-political figures, including engineer Rashid, prominent ministers such as Mehbooba Mufti, Omar Abdullah, Qazi Shibli were held in detention.
Since the central government approved the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act of 2019, which revoked the special status afforded to the valley state, a virtual lockdown has been in effect.
On August 19, 2019, Sitaram Yechury, the general secretary of the Communist Party of India, filed a Habeas Corpus appeal under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the legality of the incarceration of Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami, one of his party's leaders.
The petitioner added that Mr. Tarigami is ill, and he wants to visit him in person because of this.
In order to provide Mr. Tarigami with better medical care, the petitioner filed a request with the court asking for directions on how to transport him to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (A.I.I.M.S.), New Delhi. The Supreme Court ruled that Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami's safety had nothing to do with the fact that he was being watched by Z-security. The court further determined that the Respondent's reasoning was insufficient to limit the petitioner's visit. The court authorized the petitioner to visit Mr. Tarigami in Jammu and Kashmir to learn more about his position and general well-being, his present health, and whether he need specialist medical care in accordance with medical recommendations.
The court further warned petitioner Sitaram Yechury that he must meet with his friend and colleague to discuss his health and well-being if it is found that he was involved in any other act, omission, or commission aside from those mentioned above. Failure to do so will be seen as a breach of the court's order. In addition, the court instructed Mr. Imtiaz, the state of Jammu and Kashmir's chief police superintendent in charge of security, to make travel arrangements and aid the petitioner in finding Mr. Tarigami.
Instead of focusing on the alleged crime of the detainee when a writ of habeas corpus is filed, the court should consider the legality of the detention and whether due process was followed. In this instance, the Supreme Court did not inquire of the law enforcement personnel as to the nature of the arrest. It is established law that the state cannot restrict people's freedoms without a fair trial, not even in an emergency.
The ordinance passed on August 28, 2019, drew varied reactions. Many people applaud the Honorable Supreme Court's stance, which included rejecting the Center's arguments and permitting Sitaram Yechury to visit Srinagar. There was criticism of the court's handling of the Habeas Corpus case. It is claimed that allowing Sitaram to visit Mr. Tarigami in Kashmir is not a sufficient remedy for the infringement of his right to liberty.
The fundamental rights protected by Article 21 of the Constitution are adversely impacted by an unlawful detention. These issues must be resolved within a predetermined time limit since the right to liberty is inviolable.