The man had filed the plea on behalf of his sister, alleging that she was being subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her in-laws. He had argued that the petition should be accepted as he was in a live-in relationship with his sister.
A court cannot sanctify immorality in society
A division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas said that the Constitution of India does not ‘sanctify an immoral act’ and that a writ court cannot exercise its extraordinary discretionary powers in a matter that would only sanctify immorality in the society. “In our opinion, the writ Court cannot exercise its extraordinary discretionary powers in a matter which would only sanctify immorality in the society. Maybe the offence of adultery is not attracted against a woman, but the very purpose of conferring high prerogative writs to the High Courts by the framers of the Constitution would be lost if this Court entertains this habeas corpus petition on the pleas that the petitioner by living an adulterous relationship with a married woman did not commit a crime,” the High observed.
The court rejected the petition after imposing a cost of Rs 10,000 on the petitioner. “This is too well settled a proposition in law that in appropriate cases the writ court may refuse to entertain a writ petition even where some contentious issues are raised or an arguable point has been made out. Having regard to the facts so stated in this writ petition, the present DB. Habeas Corpus Petition No.467/2024 is dismissed with a cost of Rs 10,000/- to be deposited with the Government Blind School, Jodhpur within a period of four weeks, failing which the Office shall register a suo moto case against the petitioner,” the court said.
The court said that the doctrine of locus standi could be relaxed in a habeas corpus petition, but no such relaxation could be made in a case where a man is filing the petition against the husband of his married sister and is claiming a live-in relationship with her. Explaining the doctrine of locus standi the High Court said, “The expression locus-standi is a Latin term that means ‘place of standing’ and refers to the legal right of a person to bring a lawsuit or to participate in a legal proceeding. It ensures that only those with a genuine connection to the legal issues or legal rights are allowed to participate in the legal process. The writ of habeas corpus has always been looked upon as an effective means to ensure the release of the detained person and any emotional or intellectual concern shall not of itself confer a standing on a person to maintain a habeas corpus petition.”
No fundamental right, not even Article 21, can provide standing to the petitioner
The High Court said that even Article 21 of the Constitution, which has every wide ambit, cannot confer locus standi on the petitioner in the present petition. “Plainly speaking, there is no fundamental right of a person to have a live-in relationship with a woman legally married to another man and, more particularly, when the woman appears to be his own sister. In our opinion, there is no fundamental right not even the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India that would provide a standing for the petitioner to maintain this habeas corpus petition. The Constitution of India or any other law in India does not sanctify an immoral act,” noted the court.
The court held that the alleged live-in relationship between the petitioner and his sister had no legal sanctity and it was ‘void ab initio’ (void since the beginning) as per section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. “We do not nurture a doubt even for a second that a petition seeking protection to life at the instance of any citizen of this country or even a foreign national notwithstanding his character, antecedents, etc. shall be maintainable by him or at his instance but a habeas corpus petition by a person like the petitioner seeking production of ‘X’ in the court is not maintainable,” the court said.
The court did not agree with the petitioner’s reliance on the interpretation of the Supreme Court of ‘constitutional morality’ and ‘social morality’ in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018). The court said that the case had a different context and that the observations made therein by the Supreme Court do not sanctify the relationship of the petitioner with the woman in the present case.
