Sitaram Yechury vs.

Union of India [Jammu

and Kashmir Habeas Corpus Case]
Sitaram Yechury vs. Union of India [WP(Crl.) 229/2019; Jammu and Kashmir Habeas Corpus
Case]

Brief Facts of Sitaram Yechury vs. Union of India

 On August 5, following the repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, a ban on access to
the Internet and communication services was imposed throughout the state of Jammu and
Kashmir.
 Several political and non-political leaders, such as Qazi Shibli, Jammu and Kashmir, former
Prime Ministers Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah, MLA Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami and
engineer Rashid were detained in remand.
 As a result of which a virtual lockdown was imposed since the central government passed the
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act of 2019, which lifted the special status granted to the
valley state.
 Sitaram Yechury, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India on 19th of August 2019
took to court a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the
constitutional validity of the detention imposed on one among the leaders of his party,
Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami.
 The petitioner also stated that Mr. Tarigami, is in poor health and he wishes to go to him
personally.
 The petitioner filed an application seeking orders from the Court for bringing Mr. Tarigami to the
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (A.I.I.M.S.), New Delhi, for better medical facilities.

Issues Involved

1. Whether the detention imposed on Mr. Tarigami constitutionally valid?

2. Whether the petitioner would be allowed to go to Jammu & Kashmir to meet Mr. Tarigami?

Contentions of Petitioner in Sitaram Yechury vs. Union of India

The petitioner argued that despite his best efforts, he was unable to investigate Dr. Tarigami’s well-being
and his attempt to meet him personally in Kashmir had also failed, as he was denied entry to the state.
Furthermore, he stated that Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami was ill and, through the habeas corpus
application, the petitioner requested the court to transfer Md. Tarigami to the All India Institute of
Medical Sciences (A.I.I.M.S.) Delhi, for better medical treatment.[1]

Contentions of Respondent in Sitaram Yechury vs. Union of India

The respondents rejected the petitioner’s requests and argued that Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami’s health
was in good health and under the surveillance of a security Z, for which the petitioner was denied
personal physical communication.
Judgement in Sitaram Yechury vs. Union of India

 The Supreme Court held the fact that Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami was under watch the Z-
security doesn’t have anything to do with his wellbeing. The court further held that the thinking
of the Respondent was not appropriate for restricting the petitioner’s visit.[2]
 The court granted the petitioner permission to travel to Jammu and Kashmir to meet with Mr.
Tarigami, in order to learn about his position and well-being, the current state of his health and
whether he needs specialized medical treatment in accordance with medical advice. The court
also warned the petitioner Sitaram Yechury that if it was determined that he was involved in any
other act, omission or commission, except as indicated above by him and that it is to meet with
his friend and colleague to inquire about his state of health and well-being. , will be construed as
a violation of the order of the Court. The court also ordered Mr. Imtiaz, the chief police
superintendent in charge of security in the state of Jammu and Kashmir to facilitate the trip and
help the petitioner locate Mr. Tarigami.
 The court further asked the petitioner to file a report when he comes back to Delhi[3], supported
by an affidavit in connection with the purpose of the visit as indicated in this order.
 The court on September 5, 2019 ordered that Mr. Tarigami be transferred to AIIMS, New Delhi,
and allowed a family member of his choice to accompany him.[4]
 Tarigami’s discharge report issued by AIIMS; New Delhi was submitted to the court. On
September 16, 2019, the court ordered that Mr. Tarigami was free to return to Srinagar when he
deemed it appropriate to undertake the journey. Furthermore, in the same order, the Court ruled
that the written request remains open to rule on the alleged detention without legal authority.[5]
 Subsequently, the Court issued several orders that allow the parties to present additional briefs or
against complaints.[6] On October 24, 2019, it ordered the sending of the file together with the
Constitutional College. And on January 28, 2020, the registry was ordered to list the matter
before an appropriate desk.[7]
 However, the ruling on the question of the merits of the alleged detention of Mr. Tarigami
without any legitimate authority remains undecided at this time.

Analysis of Sitaram Yechury vs. Union of India

When a writ of habeas corpus is filed, the court, rather than addressing the issue of the detainee’s alleged
crime, should be involved in determining the legality of the detention and whether due process was
followed. In the present case, the Supreme Court did not question the authorities about the reason for the
person’s arrest. It is an established law that, even in an emergency situation, the state cannot limit
people’s freedoms without a fair trial.

The August 28, 2019 ordinance received a mixed response. The position of the Honorable Supreme
Court, rejecting the Center’s arguments and allowing Sitaram Yechury to travel to Srinagar, has been well
received by many. The way the court handled the Habeas Corpus issue received a negative response.
Allowing Sitaram to meet Mr. Tarigami in Kashmir is said to be not an adequate remedy against the
violation of the right to liberty.

Illegal detention directly affects the fundamental rights guaranteed by article 21 of the Constitution. The
right to liberty is sacrosanct and therefore these cases must be completed within a set time frame.
Conclusion

As an independent and democratic country, India needs to defend the fundamental rights of its civilians.
An act of habeas corpus requires the guarantee of the legitimacy of imprisonment and the correct
procedure. The court is not obliged to investigate the question of the alleged wrongdoing of the detainee.

It is necessary to adopt the principle of proportionality. If a state wants to suspend people’s rights to
achieve a broader goal, it must demonstrate that the steps it is about to take have a rational relationship to
the goal. In case of suspension of the fundamental rights of the people in Jammu and Kashmir, it is true
that the security of the nation cannot be compromised, but neither can the protection of rights be ignored.
Law scholar Nick Robinson noted that the Indian judiciary has gained a lot of power thanks to the
public’s trust in it. However, that confidence is now in doubt, as the court itself yielded to enforcement
actions without even determining the proportionality of the state measures.