Remarking that merely that the Petitioner is a Lawyer in Delhi cannot be a ground to entertain a Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court recently refused to entertain a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by an Advocate seeking directions to secure the presence of her wife and two daughters who are allegedly missing since October 16, 2023.

The Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar in its order observed, "We are not inclined to entertain this petition merely on the ground that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer in Delhi. The petitioner can very well seek the remedy before the High Court of Allahabad. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition as the petitioner can seek appropriate relief even in the event of possible threat to his wife and daughters."

Senior Advocate Rakesh Khanna along with Advocate-on-Record Vardhman Kaushik appeared for the Petitioner.

Advocate Rajkumar Yadav, the Petitioner, approached the Apex Court, alleging that his wife and two daughters had been wrongfully abducted. In his petition, Yadav expressed serious concerns about the well-being of his wife and daughters. The petition further stated that the petitioner's wife and daughters were suffering from a precarious mental condition, and taking advantage of this situation, his father-in-law had wrongfully abducted them.

Appearing for Yadav, Senior Advocate Khanna had submitted to the Court that the Petitioner, a practicing lawyer living in Delhi has invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Khanna also stated that there is serious apprehension on the part of the Petitioner about approaching the Allahabad High Court as there is a threat to his wife and daughters.

It was also submitted in the Petition that Yadav had approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bagpat requesting for immediate rescue but the concerned officials failed to act on the same. "That the petitioner has every reasonable apprehension that the wife and daughters of the petitioner are being illegally dealt with by the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and but for the immediate intervention of this Hon'ble court, the lives of the wife and daughters of the petitioner are in serious jeopardy", reads the Petition.

The petition also highlights that, on the other hand, the petitioner's father-in-law has filed a complaint with the jurisdictional police station regarding the disappearance of the petitioner's wife and daughters. Therefore, the petitioner sought the Court's direction for their immediate presence.

The Apex Court while refusing to entertain the petition remarked that the mere fact that the petitioner is a lawyer cannot be a ground for entertaining the petition under Article 32.

However, the Court directed the Registry to transfer this writ petition to the High Court of Allahabad. The Court also requested the High Court to expedite its examination of the matter.

"The Registry is directed to transfer this Writ Petition to the High Court of Allahabad. We request the High Court of Allahabad to take up this petition and to re-number it and dispose of it as expeditiously as possible. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly", stated the Bench in its order.

Cause Title: Rajkumar Yadav v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1205/2023]

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice MM SundreshJustice Aravind KumarAdvocatesArticle 32

Ramey Krishan Rana