Can a person detained under preventive detention be released by Punjab and Haryana High Court when the advisory board does not file its report after the ten week period?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a person is taken into custody by a district magistrate under a preventive detention provision, and the statutory advisory board that must review the detention fails to submit its report within the prescribed ten‑week period. The detainee, who has been held for several weeks beyond the deadline, files a petition seeking immediate release, alleging that the procedural lapse renders the detention illegal. The petition is presented before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, invoking the constitutional remedy of habeas corpus to challenge the continued confinement.

The factual backdrop involves an order of detention issued on the basis of alleged threats to public order. The investigating agency records the allegations in an FIR and forwards the case to the magistrate, who authorises detention for a period not exceeding the maximum allowed under the preventive detention law. By law, an advisory board comprising legal and medical experts must examine the material, hear the detainee, and submit its findings to the State Government within ten weeks of the detention. The board, however, does not file its report, and the State Government makes no further order, leaving the detainee in custody.

At the procedural stage when the detainee seeks relief, a simple factual defence—such as contesting the material allegations in the FIR—does not address the core legal defect. The primary issue is the statutory breach: the mandatory deadline for the advisory board’s report has elapsed, and the law requires the State to act “forthwith” on that report. Because the report never materialised, the statutory condition precedent to the continuation of detention is absent, making the detention ultra vires the statute.

Consequently, the appropriate remedy is not a criminal trial on the merits of the allegations but a writ of habeas corpus to test the legality of the detention itself. The detainee, through counsel, files a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking a declaration that the detention is unlawful and an order for immediate release. This high‑court proceeding is the correct avenue because the constitutional jurisdiction to issue habeas corpus extends to the High Courts for violations of fundamental rights, and the matter does not yet require the Supreme Court’s intervention under Article 32.

The petition outlines the statutory framework: the preventive detention act authorises detention only subject to the advisory board’s report, and the act expressly mandates that the report be filed within ten weeks. It alleges that the board’s failure to comply with this deadline has rendered the detention illegal from the day after the deadline expired. The petition also points out that the State Government has not issued any subsequent order, and the detainee remains in custody without any legal basis.

In response, the prosecution argues that the petition does not specifically allege the non‑submission of the advisory board’s report, contending that the detainee’s continued custody is justified pending a fresh review. The prosecution further asserts that the High Court should defer to the executive’s discretion and adjourn the matter to ascertain the status of the report. However, the petition’s language clearly states that the report was never filed, and the statutory deadline has passed, making the argument of mere procedural oversight untenable.

To strengthen the case, the detainee’s counsel—who is a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court—cites precedents where the failure of an advisory board to submit its report within the statutory period was held to invalidate the detention. The counsel emphasizes that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty cannot be suspended by an executive order that flouts mandatory procedural safeguards. The petition therefore seeks a writ of habeas corpus, directing the State to release the detainee forthwith.

During the hearing, the bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court examines the statutory provisions, the constitutional mandate, and the factual matrix presented. The court notes that the preventive detention law imposes a strict timeline to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The absence of the advisory board’s report defeats the statutory condition precedent, and the State’s inaction cannot be construed as a tacit approval of continued detention.

Recognising the gravity of the liberty interest, the judges issue an interim order directing the State to produce any record of the advisory board’s proceedings, if any, within a short period. The order also stays the detention pending final determination of the petition. This interim relief underscores the High Court’s power to protect fundamental rights while the substantive issue is resolved.

On the merits, the Punjab and Haryana High Court concludes that the statutory breach is fatal to the legality of the detention. The court holds that the failure to submit the advisory board’s report within the ten‑week window makes the detention unlawful from the day after the deadline. Accordingly, the court grants the writ of habeas corpus, ordering the immediate release of the detainee and directing the State to comply with the procedural requirements of the preventive detention act in any future cases.

The outcome illustrates why the remedy lay before the Punjab and Haryana High Court rather than in a regular criminal trial. The core dispute centered on a procedural defect that directly affected the legality of the detention, a matter squarely within the High Court’s jurisdiction to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. By filing a habeas corpus petition under Article 226, the detainee was able to obtain swift judicial scrutiny of the executive’s action, a remedy unavailable through ordinary criminal defence mechanisms.

Legal practitioners who handle similar preventive detention matters often rely on experienced counsel to navigate the procedural intricacies. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, for instance, may draft a petition that meticulously alleges the non‑submission of the advisory board’s report and cites relevant case law. Likewise, lawyers in Chandigarh High Court and lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court collaborate to ensure that the petition meets the stringent pleading standards required for a successful habeas corpus application.

In summary, the fictional scenario mirrors the legal principles established in the earlier Supreme Court decision, but the procedural posture differs: the remedy is sought through a writ of habeas corpus before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The case underscores the importance of statutory compliance in preventive detention regimes and demonstrates how a focused constitutional petition can effectively safeguard personal liberty when ordinary criminal defences fall short.

Question: What is the legal significance of the advisory board’s failure to submit its report within the statutory ten‑week period in the context of the detainee’s petition for habeas corpus before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: The advisory board’s omission is not a mere administrative lapse; it strikes at the core of the statutory scheme that authorises preventive detention. Under the preventive detention act, the board’s report is a condition precedent to the continuation of any confinement. The law expressly mandates that the board examine the material, hear the detainee, and forward its findings to the State Government within ten weeks, after which the State must act “forthwith.” When the board fails to meet this deadline, the statutory condition is never satisfied, rendering the detention ultra vires the act from the day after the deadline expires. In the petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the detainee relies on this breach to invoke the constitutional remedy of habeas corpus, arguing that personal liberty cannot be curtailed without compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards. The High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the petition stems from Article 226, which empowers it to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights when a legal right is infringed. The court must therefore assess whether the statutory defect automatically invalidates the detention, irrespective of the merits of the original allegations recorded in the FIR. If the court finds that the condition precedent was not fulfilled, the detention is illegal and the writ must command immediate release. This analysis also underscores the principle that procedural safeguards in preventive detention statutes are substantive rights, not technicalities. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would therefore focus the petition on the precise statutory breach, citing precedent where similar failures have been held fatal to the legality of detention. The legal significance, therefore, lies in converting a procedural omission into a constitutional violation that justifies the issuance of a habeas corpus writ and the consequent release of the detainee.

Question: How does the procedural defect identified in the preventive detention case affect the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to grant relief, and what are the possible remedies available to the detainee?

Answer: The procedural defect expands the High Court’s jurisdiction from merely supervising the executive to actively enforcing constitutional rights. Because the advisory board’s report was never filed, the statutory basis for the detention collapses, and the detainee’s liberty interest becomes a direct question of fundamental rights. Under Article 226, the Punjab and Haryana High Court can entertain a writ of habeas corpus to examine whether the detention complies with the law. The defect therefore transforms the case into a classic jurisdictional matter where the court must determine if the State acted beyond its legal authority. The primary remedy is the issuance of a writ directing the State to release the detainee forthwith. In addition, the court may order the State to produce any records of the advisory board’s proceedings, thereby ensuring transparency and preventing future procedural lapses. An interim order may also be granted, staying the detention while the court decides the substantive issue. Beyond the writ, the detainee could seek compensation for unlawful confinement, though such a claim would typically arise in a separate civil proceeding. The High Court may also direct the State to comply with the statutory timeline in future cases, effectively reinforcing the procedural safeguards embedded in the preventive detention act. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court often argue that the failure to file the report not only invalidates the present detention but also signals a systemic breach that warrants supervisory directions. Thus, the procedural defect not only justifies immediate release but also empowers the court to issue ancillary orders that safeguard the detainee’s rights and compel the executive to adhere strictly to statutory mandates.

Question: In what ways can the prosecution’s argument that the petition does not expressly allege non‑submission of the advisory board’s report be evaluated, and what evidentiary standards apply in a writ of habeas corpus proceeding?

Answer: The prosecution’s contention must be measured against the pleading standards that govern writ petitions. A writ of habeas corpus is a remedial remedy, and the petitioner is required to set out the material facts that give rise to the violation of liberty. The allegation that the advisory board failed to submit its report within the ten‑week period is a factual claim that can be pleaded in a concise paragraph, and the court will interpret it liberally to ascertain whether a statutory breach exists. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the petition’s language, which states that the report was never filed and that the deadline has elapsed, satisfies the requirement of specificity. The prosecution’s demand for a more detailed allegation is inconsistent with the principle that the petitioner need not prove the breach at the pleading stage; the burden shifts to the State to demonstrate compliance. In a habeas corpus proceeding, the evidentiary standard is a preponderance of probabilities, not the higher criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The court may summon the State to produce the advisory board’s minutes, any draft reports, or a certificate of non‑submission. If the State cannot produce such evidence, the court will infer that the statutory condition precedent was not met. The prosecution may also rely on the principle of judicial deference to executive discretion, but this deference is limited when a mandatory statutory deadline is involved. The court’s role is to ensure that the procedural safeguards designed to protect personal liberty are not rendered illusory. Consequently, the prosecution’s argument is likely to be dismissed as a technical objection, and the court will focus on whether the factual allegation of non‑submission is credible and supported by the record.

Question: What practical steps should the detainee’s counsel, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, take to strengthen the petition and ensure compliance with pleading requirements, and how might the court’s interim order influence the subsequent proceedings?

Answer: A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must first ensure that the petition meticulously details the statutory framework, the exact date of detention, the deadline for the advisory board’s report, and the fact that the report was never filed. The pleading should cite the preventive detention act’s requirement that the report be submitted within ten weeks and that the State must act “forthwith” on that report. Including a clear chronology helps the court see the breach without ambiguity. The counsel should attach a copy of the detention order, the FIR, and any correspondence with the advisory board to substantiate the claim. Next, the lawyer should anticipate the prosecution’s objections by pre‑emptively addressing the allegation of non‑submission, perhaps by attaching an affidavit from the detainee confirming that no report was received. The petition should also request specific relief: a writ of habeas corpus, immediate release, and an order directing the State to produce any records of the advisory board’s proceedings. When the court issues an interim order directing the State to produce records, the counsel must be prepared to examine those documents promptly and raise any further violations that emerge. The interim order also serves to preserve the status quo, preventing the detainee from being transferred or further detained while the matter is decided. It signals the court’s willingness to scrutinize the executive’s compliance, which can pressure the State to expedite the production of the advisory board’s report or admit its non‑existence. The counsel should use the interim period to file any supplementary affidavits, seek a hearing on the admissibility of the produced documents, and, if necessary, move for a final order of release. By adhering to pleading standards and leveraging the interim order, the lawyer maximizes the chances of obtaining the substantive writ and safeguards the detainee’s liberty throughout the proceedings.

Question: Why does the writ of habeas corpus filed by the detainee fall within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rather than a regular criminal trial court?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the detention was authorized by a magistrate under a preventive detention statute that conditions continued confinement on the submission of an advisory board report within a fixed period. When that statutory condition was not fulfilled, the legal basis for the detention vanished, creating a direct violation of the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. A criminal trial court’s primary function is to adjudicate guilt or innocence on the merits of the alleged offence, which would require examination of the FIR, evidence, and defence. In the present case, the core dispute is not whether the allegations in the FIR are true but whether the executive action complied with a mandatory procedural safeguard. The High Court, empowered by the Constitution to entertain writ petitions, can review the legality of administrative actions and enforce fundamental rights without waiting for a criminal trial to conclude. This jurisdiction is essential because the detainee is already in custody and any delay inherent in a criminal proceeding would further infringe liberty. Moreover, the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 extends to any violation of fundamental rights, including unlawful detention, and it can issue a direct order for release. The procedural route therefore bypasses the ordinary criminal process, focusing instead on the statutory breach. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise that invoking the writ jurisdiction provides an expeditious remedy, allowing the court to examine the statutory timeline, demand production of the advisory board’s report, and, if absent, declare the detention illegal. This approach aligns with precedent where High Courts have quashed preventive detentions on similar procedural defaults, underscoring that the remedy lies squarely before the High Court rather than a criminal trial court.

Question: How does the failure of the advisory board to submit its report create a legal defect that cannot be remedied by merely contesting the factual allegations in the FIR?

Answer: The preventive detention framework imposes a dual requirement: an initial order of detention and a subsequent advisory board review that must be completed within a prescribed period. The advisory board’s report is not a mere advisory opinion; it is a statutory condition precedent to the continuation of confinement. When the board does not file its report, the statutory mechanism that validates the detention collapses, rendering the detention ultra vires the law from the day after the deadline. This defect is procedural and substantive because the law expressly ties the legality of detention to the existence of the report. A factual defence that challenges the material allegations in the FIR addresses only the merits of the alleged offence, not the statutory prerequisite. Even if the detainee could prove innocence on the factual front, the detention would remain unlawful if the procedural safeguard was ignored. The High Court, therefore, examines whether the statutory condition was satisfied, not whether the underlying allegations are true. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would stress that the petition must articulate the breach of the mandatory reporting timeline, because the court’s jurisdiction to grant relief hinges on that breach. The court can order the State to produce any record of the advisory board’s proceedings; if none exists, the court will deem the detention illegal irrespective of the FIR’s content. Consequently, the procedural defect supersedes any factual defence, and the appropriate remedy is a writ of habeas corpus that directly addresses the illegality of continued confinement, not a criminal defence strategy that would be ineffective at this stage.

Question: What procedural steps must the detainee follow to file a successful habeas corpus petition, and why might the detainee seek a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court to draft and present the petition?

Answer: The detainee must first prepare a petition that sets out the constitutional right to liberty, identifies the statutory framework governing preventive detention, and specifically alleges that the advisory board failed to submit its report within the mandated period. The petition should request that the High Court examine the legality of the detention, direct the State to produce any board records, and, if none are found, issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering immediate release. Supporting documents include the detention order, the FIR, and any correspondence with the advisory board or State Government. After drafting, the petition is filed in the registry of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where a case number is assigned, and the respondents are served with notice. The court then schedules a hearing, during which the petitioner may be required to substantiate the claim of non‑submission. Engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court is prudent because that counsel possesses familiarity with the High Court’s procedural rules, filing formats, and precedent on preventive detention writs. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can ensure that the petition meets the pleading standards, cite relevant case law where the failure of an advisory board report led to quashing of detention, and articulate the urgency of liberty interests to persuade the bench to grant interim relief. Moreover, the lawyer can navigate interlocutory applications for production of documents and argue for bail or release pending final determination. The expertise of lawyers in Chandigarh High Court thus enhances the likelihood of a well‑structured petition that aligns with the court’s expectations, avoids technical dismissals, and expedites the issuance of a writ, which is essential given the detainee’s continued custody.

Question: In what manner can the Punjab and Haryana High Court provide interim relief during the pendency of the habeas corpus petition, and why is this interim relief preferable to awaiting the outcome of a criminal trial?

Answer: Upon recognizing that the advisory board’s report is absent, the High Court can issue an interim order directing the State to produce any records of the board’s proceedings within a short timeframe and to maintain the detainee in custody only until the final determination. The court may also stay the detention, effectively releasing the detainee on bail or under personal liberty conditions while the petition is decided. This interim relief is grounded in the principle that liberty cannot be curtailed on the basis of a procedural lapse, and the court’s inherent power to prevent irreparable injury. By granting such relief, the High Court prevents the continued deprivation of freedom that would otherwise persist if the matter were left to a criminal trial, where the accused would have to endure the full term of detention while the trial proceeds through investigation, charge framing, and trial stages. The criminal trial process is lengthy, often spanning months or years, and the detainee’s liberty interest would be compromised throughout. In contrast, the writ jurisdiction allows the High Court to address the legality of confinement directly and swiftly. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court can argue that interim relief safeguards the constitutional right to liberty and ensures that the State does not benefit from its own procedural default. The court’s ability to order immediate release pending final judgment not only upholds fundamental rights but also reduces the burden on the criminal justice system by removing a case that is fundamentally about procedural invalidity rather than substantive guilt. This approach aligns with the overarching objective of the writ jurisdiction to provide prompt and effective remedies for violations of personal liberty.

Question: What are the procedural risks of continuing detention after the advisory board’s deadline, and how can a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court argue that the detention is ultra vires?

Answer: The core procedural risk lies in the statutory condition precedent that the advisory board must submit its report within the ten‑week window; once that period lapses without a report, the legal authority to keep the accused in custody evaporates. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will first map the timeline: the detention order was issued, the board was constituted, and the statutory deadline passed with no report filed. This creates a clear breach of the preventive detention act, rendering any subsequent executive action unsupported by law. The counsel will emphasize that the act expressly requires the State to act “forthwith” on the board’s findings, a duty that cannot be fulfilled when the findings are absent. Consequently, the continued confinement becomes ultra vires both the statute and the Constitution’s guarantee of personal liberty. The argument will be framed as a violation of a fundamental right, invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a habeas corpus order. The lawyer will also point out that the prosecution’s reliance on a prospective fresh review cannot cure the past defect; the law does not permit retrospective validation of detention that has already become unlawful. By highlighting the statutory breach, the counsel seeks to compel the court to declare the detention illegal from the day after the deadline and to order immediate release. The procedural risk for the State includes exposure to contempt proceedings for defying a court order, potential damages for unlawful detention, and reputational harm. For the accused, the risk is continued deprivation of liberty without legal basis, which may affect the ability to mount a defence on the substantive allegations. The strategic focus, therefore, is to secure a swift declaration of illegality, thereby eliminating the detention and preserving the accused’s right to challenge the underlying FIR in a separate criminal proceeding if desired.

Question: Which documents and evidentiary material should the accused’s counsel request from the investigating agency and the State to establish the non‑submission of the advisory board report, and how should a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court structure those requests?

Answer: To prove the failure of the advisory board, the accused’s counsel must obtain a complete paper trail that demonstrates the board’s composition, its meeting minutes, any written submissions, and the final report, if any. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court will file a formal application under the appropriate procedural rule seeking production of the board’s register, the notice of appointment of members, the docket of hearings, and any correspondence between the board and the State Government. The request should also include the original FIR, the detention order, and any subsequent orders issued by the magistrate. By securing the board’s register, the counsel can show that no entry was made after the deadline, thereby evidencing non‑submission. The lawyer will also ask for the State’s internal memos or communications that discuss the status of the report, as these can reveal an intentional delay or negligence. In addition, the counsel should seek the log of any medical or legal expert opinions that were to be part of the board’s deliberations; absence of such documents further corroborates the procedural lapse. The application must be precise, naming each document and explaining its relevance to the claim that the statutory condition precedent was not satisfied. The lawyer will argue that the State has a duty to disclose these records because they are essential to determine the legality of the detention, and that withholding them would amount to a denial of the accused’s right to a fair hearing. The request should be framed as a discovery measure, invoking the High Court’s inherent powers to ensure that justice is not thwarted by selective production of evidence. Once the documents are produced, the counsel can prepare a detailed chronology and submit an affidavit affirming that the advisory board’s report was never filed, thereby strengthening the petition for habeas corpus relief.

Question: How does the fact that the FIR contains allegations of threats to public order affect the strategy for the accused, and what arguments can lawyers in Chandigarh High Court raise to separate the substantive allegations from the procedural defect?

Answer: The FIR’s allegation that the accused posed a threat to public order creates a factual backdrop that the State may use to justify the detention, but it does not cure the procedural defect. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court will adopt a two‑pronged strategy: first, they will acknowledge the seriousness of the allegations to avoid appearing dismissive, and second, they will underscore that the law requires a procedural safeguard before any deprivation of liberty can be sustained. The counsel will argue that the preventive detention framework is premised on a balance between collective security and individual liberty; the balance is tipped only when the statutory safeguards, such as the advisory board’s report, are fulfilled. By separating the merits of the FIR from the procedural lapse, the lawyers can maintain that even if the allegations were true, the State lacked authority to continue detention after the deadline. The argument will be reinforced by citing jurisprudence that procedural compliance is a condition precedent to any substantive justification. Moreover, the counsel will point out that the FIR itself does not contain a judicial finding; it merely records the police’s perception, which must be examined by a competent authority. Since the advisory board, which is the designated authority, never rendered a finding, the substantive allegations remain untested. The lawyers will also highlight that the High Court’s jurisdiction under the writ remedy is to examine the legality of the detention, not to adjudicate the truth of the FIR’s content. By focusing on the procedural defect, the counsel can secure immediate release while preserving the option to contest the FIR’s allegations in a separate criminal trial, should the State decide to prosecute after the detention is lifted. This approach safeguards the accused’s liberty now and prevents the State from using the procedural lapse as a pretext to avoid scrutiny of the underlying claims.

Question: What are the options for seeking immediate release while preserving the possibility of a future substantive challenge, and how should a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court balance bail versus habeas corpus relief?

Answer: The primary avenue for immediate release is a writ of habeas corpus, which attacks the legality of the detention itself. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will file the petition, emphasizing the statutory breach, and request an order for unconditional release. Simultaneously, the counsel can seek a direction that the State may, if it wishes, initiate fresh criminal proceedings against the accused on the basis of the FIR, thereby preserving the substantive challenge for later. The advantage of habeas corpus is that it does not require the accused to demonstrate innocence on the merits; it merely requires proof that the procedural requirement was not met. Bail, on the other hand, is a relief that assumes the underlying criminal case is proceeding, and it requires the court to balance the risk of flight, tampering with evidence, and public safety. Since the detention is already unlawful, seeking bail would be redundant and could complicate the narrative by implying that the accused acknowledges the existence of a valid charge. Moreover, bail applications often involve a detailed assessment of the accused’s character and the nature of the alleged offence, which may inadvertently expose the accused to adverse inferences. By focusing on habeas corpus, the lawyer can secure a clean break from the illegal confinement without engaging in the bail discourse. The counsel can also request interim relief, such as a direction that the State produce any pending report within a short period, and if the report is eventually filed, the court can then consider whether a fresh detention order is permissible. This strategy ensures that the accused is released immediately, the procedural defect is highlighted, and the door remains open for the State to pursue a substantive case, which the accused can contest on its own merits in a regular criminal trial.

Question: In the event the State moves to produce a belated advisory board report, what procedural defects can be highlighted to still obtain quashing of the detention, and what role does the accused’s custody status play in shaping the High Court’s interim orders?

Answer: If the State attempts to salvage the detention by presenting a report filed after the statutory deadline, lawyers in Chandigarh High Court will argue that the report is a nullity because the law imposes a strict temporal condition that cannot be waived by subsequent action. The counsel will point out that the advisory board’s mandate is to submit its findings within ten weeks, and the phrase “forthwith” in the subsequent provision presupposes a timely report; a delayed report defeats the statutory purpose of preventing arbitrary detention. The lawyer will also highlight any procedural irregularities in the composition of the board, such as lack of required legal or medical expertise, or failure to give the accused a proper opportunity to be heard, which further undermines the report’s validity. Regarding custody, the accused remains in detention while the court deliberates, creating an urgency for interim relief. The High Court, mindful of the principle that liberty cannot be curtailed without lawful authority, is likely to issue an order staying the detention pending a final determination on the report’s legitimacy. The counsel will request that the court direct the State to release the accused immediately if the report is found untimely, or alternatively, to place the accused on bail pending a fresh hearing on the substantive allegations. By emphasizing the continued unlawful nature of the confinement, the lawyer ensures that the court’s interim orders protect the accused’s liberty while the substantive issue of the report’s admissibility is resolved. This approach not only seeks quashing of the detention but also safeguards the accused from further procedural abuse, reinforcing the High Court’s role as the guardian of fundamental rights.