Recently, the Allahabad High Court has directed the National Commission for Women to probe officers who circumvented a stay order by recording a woman's custody as "possession," invoking historical precedents to highlight the violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by an inter-religious couple seeking to challenge the detention of the woman, Saniya, at a protection home. Despite a High Court order restraining the police from arresting her, the Investigating Officer took her into custody in September 2025. To evade the stay order, the police recorded in the Case Diary that she was being taken into “possession”, noting in Hindi that “(Woman's name) ko... Kabza Police liya jata hai”. A memorandum (fard) of possession was prepared and her husband was compelled to sign it. During the proceedings, the woman’s father claimed she was a minor on the basis of school records, whereas the medico-legal report indicated otherwise.
Contentions:
The Petitioners invoked habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending unlawful detention in violation of the stay order and their right to personal liberty, asserting Saniya's majority based on medico-legal evidence. The State, represented by the Government Advocate, defended the action by relying on school records indicating Saniya's birth date as April 25, 2009, prioritising such evidence under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, over ossification reports, and justifying custody as protective given the FIR allegations of enticement.
Observation of the Court:
The Bench observed while noting the police evasion of the stay order through semantic manipulation that “The idea and the action - the idea more than the action are both abhorrable. To think that in the twenty first century, a man of contemporary society, working in the ranks of the Police, can think that a human being can be taken into possession, on the basis of a memorandum of possession or fard, makes it seem to us that at least the persons concerned in this transaction have not come a long way from the days of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)."
The Court further observed that “ Now, it is well known that the date of birth entered in the Aadhar Card hardly affords any basis to ascertain a person’s date of birth. Dates of birth mentioned on the Aadhar Card are recorded for the mere saying of the head of a family or the person who is applying for the Card to be made. It is not cross-checked by any authentic record such as a date of birth certificate from the Corporation or other competent Body.”
Lastly, the Bench directed that “The detenue's stand, being unequivocal, that she wants to go and stay with (Husband), whom she wants to marry, she is at liberty to do so. She is free to marry (Husband) and stay with him and marry him according to such rites and rituals which both of them consider appropriate. They can stay together, even otherwise. This is a right which inheres in every citizen of India who is a major and it cannot be interfered with by anyone, including the State, acting at someone's instance like the detenue's parents.”
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court allowed the habeas corpus petition.
Case Title: Smt Saniya and Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. and Ors.
Case No.: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. - 1042 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice J.J. Munir, and Hon'ble Justice Sanjiv Kumar
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Arjit Srivastava, Usha Srivastava, Vinod Kumar Srivastava
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
