Habeas Corpus: India vs. USA – Key Differences

1. Constitutional Basis

India

• Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, including habeas corpus.
• Article 226 empowers High Courts with broader jurisdiction to issue writs, not limited to Fundamental Rights.
• Habeas corpus is directly enforceable and considered the “heart and soul” of the Constitution (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar).

USA

• Rooted in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Suspension Clause:
  “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
• While not explicitly termed a “fundamental right,” it is considered a cornerstone of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Procedures were originally codified in the Judiciary Act of 1789.

2. Suspension of Habeas Corpus

India

• Suspension is allowed only during a constitutionally declared national emergency (Article 352).
• During an emergency, under Article 359, the right to move any court for the enforcement of certain Fundamental Rights can be suspended.
• Most controversially suspended during the Emergency of 1975–77.
• Requires Parliamentary approval and is subject to judicial review post-44th Amendment (1978), which made the Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21) non-suspendable.

USA

• Can be suspended only in cases of rebellion or invasion, and only if public safety requires it.
• Historically invoked during the Civil War (by President Lincoln), World War II (internment of Japanese Americans), and post-9/11 for Guantánamo Bay detainees.
• Congressional authorization is required, though this has been contentious (e.g., 2006 Military Commissions Act curtailed habeas for “enemy combatants” before being partly overturned in Boumediene).

3. Scope & Judicial Approach

India

• Broader scope: Used not just for unlawful detention, but also for issues like custodial torture, missing persons, and trafficking victims.
• Suo motu cognizance: Courts can take up cases without formal petitions.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) framework allows third parties (e.g., NGOs, activists) to file for detainees who are unable to approach courts.

USA

• Narrower functional scope, mainly to test the legality of detentions (often in criminal, immigration, or military contexts).
• Petition must typically be filed by the detainee or an immediate representative.
• No equivalent of India’s PIL system; standing is strictly interpreted.

4. Landmark Cases

India

• ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976): Held that habeas corpus could be suspended during Emergency—infamously upheld Executive overreach. Later overruled in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), which reaffirmed the inviolability of liberty.
• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993): Recognized monetary compensation for custodial death as a remedy under Article 21.
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980): Extended habeas corpus to address prisoner rights and torture.

USA

• Boumediene v. Bush (2008): Recognized Guantánamo Bay detainees’ right to file habeas corpus petitions, even though they were outside U.S. sovereign territory.
• Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004): U.S. citizens labeled as “enemy combatants” are entitled to due process, including habeas hearings.
• Ex parte Milligan (1866): Ruled that military tribunals cannot try civilians when civil courts are open, even during war.

5. Remedies & Compensation

India

• Courts can directly award compensation in habeas cases—unique among common law countries.
• Examples: ₹10 lakhs or more in wrongful detention and custodial death cases.
• The process is relatively swift, often treated with urgency, though not immune to procedural delays.

USA

• No direct compensation via habeas corpus.
• Detainees must file civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens actions against federal officials.
• Often a long-drawn process, especially in national security-related detentions (e.g., Guantánamo cases).