Assertion (A) : The writ of Habeas Corpus can be granted to enable the detainee to argue his case in person.
Reason (R) : Because R Vs. Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Wynne (1992) decided so.
Codes :
Assertion (A) Analysis: Writ of Habeas Corpus Purpose
The primary function of the writ of Habeas Corpus is to challenge the legality of a person's detention. It compels the detaining authority to present the detained individual before the court to justify the detention. While a detainee may have the opportunity to be heard, the writ's fundamental purpose is not specifically to *enable* the detainee to argue their case in person.
Therefore, Assertion (A) is considered incorrect as it misrepresents the core objective of the writ.
Reason (R) Analysis: R Vs. Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Wynne (1992)
The case R. Vs. Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Wynne (1992) dealt with issues related to detention and human rights, particularly concerning the Home Secretary's powers and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, this case did not establish the principle that the writ of Habeas Corpus is granted primarily to enable the detainee to argue their case in person.
Thus, Reason (R) is also considered incorrect in its assertion regarding the specific legal precedent.
Conclusion
Since both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are factually incorrect in the context provided:
- Assertion (A) inaccurately describes the primary purpose of the writ of Habeas Corpus.
- Reason (R) incorrectly cites the case of Wynne (1992) as the basis for Assertion (A).
Consequently, the correct option is that both statements are wrong.
Important Questions from Constitution Law
- Which criteria are used in legislations for treating juveniles differently from young adults?
(a) Physical development
(b) Economic development
(c) Intellectual development
(d) Socio emotional development
Select the most suitable option : - Which of the following are matched incorrectly ?
i. Habeas Corpus – ‘To produce the body’
ii. Quo warranto – ‘Issued to a lower court to stop proceedings in a case’.
iii. Prohibition – ‘Issued to a lower court quashing a decision or order’
iv. Mandamus – ‘Commands a person to perform a public duty’. - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) to answer using codes given below :
Assertion (A) : One of the two Acts enacted under List I Entry 66 and the other under List III Entry 25 can be repugnant to each other.
Reason (R) : Because in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary of Inf. and Tourism Department decided so.
Codes : - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and answer using the codes given below :
Assertion (A) : The power under 368 of the Constitution is a constituent power subject to the constitutional scheme as to distribution of legislative power according to entries in the Seventh Schedule.
Reason (R) : Because Sasanka Sekhar Maity Vs. Union of India decided so.
Codes : - It was remarked in ‘Golaknath Vs. State of Punjab’ that our ‘Preamble to the Constitution contains in a nutshell its ideals and aspirations’ by one of the judges ?
