Introduction:
The case of Mrs. Maheshwari M v. State of Karnataka & Others (WPHC No. 81 of 2025, Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 299) came before a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Rajesh Rai K, where the Court dealt with a habeas corpus petition filed under questionable circumstances. The petitioner, a 72-year-old woman, approached the Court alleging that her son, Kriplani M, was missing since July 7, 2025. Dissatisfied with the manner in which the police investigated her complaint, she invoked the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus. However, upon examination of the facts, the Court concluded that the petition had been filed not with bona fide intent but with an ulterior motive to harass and malign the police authorities. The Court held that the petitioner had approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts and misusing the extraordinary jurisdiction of habeas corpus. Consequently, the High Court not only dismissed the petition but also imposed punitive costs of ₹2,00,000 on the petitioner, directing that ₹1,00,000 be deposited with the Karnataka Legal Services Authority and the remaining ₹1,00,000 with the Karnataka Police Benevolent Fund. The Court further directed that failure to pay the costs would invite contempt proceedings.
Arguments:
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Rajesh Gowda, contended that her son Kriplani had gone missing on July 7, 2025, and despite her efforts, she was unable to trace him. Initially, she filed WPHC No. 71 of 2025 seeking habeas corpus relief but subsequently withdrew it, citing that “certain erroneous statements” had been made in the earlier petition. Later, she approached the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Bengaluru, by way of a complaint dated July 29, 2025, seeking help in tracing her son. Dissatisfied with the police response, she filed the present habeas corpus petition alleging inaction on the part of the authorities. The petitioner’s core argument was that habeas corpus is a fundamental safeguard under the Constitution, designed to ensure liberty and prevent unlawful detention. She sought to argue that the State’s failure to trace her son, despite repeated complaints, amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Her plea was grounded on the assertion that the State’s machinery had not functioned effectively, leaving her with no option but to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. She further contended that her advanced age and helplessness in tracing her son required the Court’s indulgence.
The respondents, represented by SPP-II Vijaykumar Majage assisted by HCGP Thejesh P, and Advocate Felix appearing for Advocate S. Vijay, vehemently opposed the petition. They submitted that the habeas corpus plea was filed with malafide intent, purely to settle scores with the police who had diligently acted upon her earlier complaint. According to the respondents, the petitioner was in constant contact with her son, thereby rendering her claim of him being “missing” entirely false and misleading. The State authorities pointed out that exhaustive efforts had been made to trace the alleged detenue, who was eventually found staying at a hotel. Far from being in illegal custody, the son was living independently and when asked to appear before the Court, he abused the police officers. This, according to the State, clearly established that the habeas corpus petition was not only baseless but an attempt to harass the police officers and bring disrepute to the investigation machinery. The respondents thus submitted that the petitioner had abused the judicial process and that such misuse of the writ of habeas corpus ought to be strictly curtailed by imposing punitive costs to deter similar attempts in the future.
Judgement:
After hearing both sides and carefully examining the record, the Court delivered a strongly worded judgment. It began by noting that habeas corpus is one of the most cherished writs in constitutional jurisprudence, intended to protect personal liberty against illegal or unlawful detention. However, it stressed that this extraordinary remedy cannot be invoked to pursue collateral or vindictive motives. The Bench observed that the petitioner had earlier filed a habeas corpus petition which was subsequently withdrawn on the ground that “erroneous statements” had been made. Despite this, she filed another petition without disclosing the material fact that she was already in touch with her son, thereby suppressing information from the Court. The Bench held that such conduct amounted to approaching the Court with unclean hands.
Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Rajesh Rai K further observed that the police had made “hectic attempts” to trace the alleged detenue, and eventually found him staying at a hotel. The detenue himself had not only refused to cooperate but had also verbally abused the police officials when asked to appear before the Court. These facts, according to the Court, conclusively proved that there was no unlawful detention, and the petition was filed with ulterior motives, specifically to malign the police authorities. The Court reiterated that while citizens have the right to seek judicial remedy, that right comes with a corresponding duty to approach the Court with bona fide intent and full disclosure of facts. Suppression of facts and misuse of judicial remedies, especially constitutional writs, cannot be tolerated.
The High Court held that habeas corpus is not a tool for settling personal grievances or taking revenge against law enforcement agencies. It stressed that encouraging such litigation would dilute the sanctity of the writ jurisdiction and burden the judicial system with frivolous cases. To send a strong message against such misuse, the Court deemed it necessary to impose punitive costs. Accordingly, it dismissed the petition with costs of ₹2,00,000, directing the petitioner to pay ₹1,00,000 to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority and ₹1,00,000 to the Karnataka Police Benevolent Fund within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order. The Court also issued a stern warning that failure to comply with the order would invite contempt proceedings against the petitioner.
In its concluding observations, the Court emphasized that judicial forums must remain vigilant against attempts to misuse constitutional remedies. It observed that the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Articles 32 and 226 is meant to uphold the rule of law, not to serve as instruments of personal vendetta. By imposing heavy costs, the Court intended to deter future litigants from filing such frivolous petitions and to safeguard the sanctity of the writ of habeas corpus. The judgment stands as a reminder that while the judiciary remains the ultimate protector of liberty, it will not allow its processes to be exploited for malafide purposes.