Examine the role of habeas corpus as a constitutional remedy against arbitrary detention, citing recent High Court judgments.

Habeas corpus — "to have the body" — is the writ by which a court compels the State to justify a person's confinement. Enforceable under Articles 32 and 226 [2], it is the sharpest judicial check on preventive detention laws that permit confinement without trial.

Constitutional and statutory setting

• Article 21 makes deprivation of liberty valid only by a fair procedure established by law; Article 22(4)–(7) adds safeguards for preventive detention — advisory board review beyond three months, communication of grounds of detention, and the right to make a representation [2].
• The National Security Act, 1980, administered by the MHA, allows detention to prevent acts prejudicial to national security, foreign relations, public order or essential supplies [1]. Detention orders are passed by the State Government or District Magistrate, making executive discretion wide and judicial scrutiny essential.

How the writ operates against arbitrary detention

• It shifts the burden onto the State to produce the detenu and defend the legality of the order; vague, stale or non-existent grounds render detention void.
• In Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011), the Supreme Court held that procedural safeguards in preventive detention must be "zealously watched and enforced" and cannot be diluted by the nature of the alleged activity [3].
• Recent High Court application: in September 2026 a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court quashed the NSA detention of a Delhi University graduate held for nearly five months over the April 2026 Noida workers' protest, terming the State's version a "concocted story" and awarding ₹5 lakh compensation payable by the District Magistrate, Noida [4].

Limits

• Relief is often post facto, after months of custody; compensation is discretionary, and courts test procedural validity rather than the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

Habeas corpus thus converts Article 22's paper safeguards into enforceable accountability, and compensation orders extend it from release to remedy. Strengthening it further — time-bound listing of such petitions and reasoned advisory-board scrutiny — would align preventive detention practice with the constitutional promise of personal liberty.