Introduction:

In Mogal Shuaibulla Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (Writ Petition No. 16987 of 2026), the Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only where there is prima facie material establishing illegal detention. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta held that a major woman residing with her parents or family members cannot be presumed to be under unlawful confinement merely because a person claiming to be her partner alleges that they were in a relationship.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the production and release of a 22-year-old woman, alleging that she was being illegally detained by her mother and brother. He claimed that both of them were in a consensual relationship and intended to marry in the future. In support of his plea, he relied upon photographs and WhatsApp conversations to demonstrate the existence of their relationship. The principal issue before the Court was whether such material, in the absence of evidence of unlawful restraint, was sufficient to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of habeas corpus.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner contended that he and the woman shared a consensual relationship and intended to continue their lives together. According to him, her mother and brother were preventing her from exercising her free choice and had illegally confined her in the parental home. He argued that the photographs and WhatsApp messages placed on record established the existence of their relationship and justified the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the authorities to produce the woman before the Court.

The respondents, including the State, opposed the petition by submitting that there was no material whatsoever to establish illegal detention. It was contended that the woman was a major residing in her parental home with her mother and brother, which by itself could not be treated as unlawful confinement. They argued that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence indicating that she was being restrained against her will or deprived of her liberty. In the absence of such material, the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus could not be invoked.

Court’s Judgment:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish the essential requirement for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, namely, the existence of illegal detention.

The Division Bench observed that the mere existence of a relationship, even if accepted for the sake of argument, does not automatically confer a right to seek a writ of habeas corpus. The Court clarified that a person claiming to be the boyfriend or live-in partner of a major woman cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction unless there is credible material showing that the woman is under unlawful restraint or confinement against her wishes.

Examining the evidence, the Court found that the photographs and WhatsApp conversations relied upon by the petitioner merely indicated that the parties might have been acquainted or in a relationship. However, these materials did not suggest that the woman was being forcibly confined by her mother and brother or that she desired to leave her parental home but was prevented from doing so.

The Bench emphasised that a major daughter residing with her family in the parental house is a normal social circumstance and cannot, without more, be treated as illegal detention. The Court observed that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution must be exercised cautiously, particularly where the alleged detenue is living with her parents or close relatives.

Reiterating the settled principles governing habeas corpus, the Court held that although the scope of the writ has expanded over time to safeguard personal liberty, its foundation continues to be the existence of unlawful detention. Unless the Court is satisfied that the liberty of a person has been illegally curtailed, the writ cannot be issued merely because another individual wishes to maintain or continue a personal relationship with that person.

The Court further observed that the petitioner could not enforce his own choice of living in a relationship with the woman by resorting to a writ of habeas corpus. The constitutional remedy is intended to secure the liberty of the alleged detenue and not to protect the expectations or preferences of a person claiming to be in a relationship with her.

Finding no factual foundation to establish any violation of the woman’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Bench concluded that there was no illegal custody by her mother and brother. It reiterated that while habeas corpus is a writ of right where unlawful detention is established, it is not a writ to be issued as a matter of routine or on mere assertions unsupported by evidence.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue any other remedy available under law, if so advised. The judgment reinforces that the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus cannot substitute ordinary legal remedies in relationship disputes and that courts will insist on clear prima facie proof of illegal detention before exercising such jurisdiction.