In which of the following cases did Lord Wright observe that “the incalculable value of habeas corpus is that it enables the immediate determination of the applicant’s freedom”?

Question

The concept of per se disqualification is unknown to the Constitution. Any decision as to the disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule must be taken after following the due process of law and the principles of natural justice. A member incurs disqualification only after adjudication by the Speaker. The procedure for the adjudication of disqualification petitions is prescribed under the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules 1986. The MLAs facing disqualification retain the right to participate in the proceedings of the House and vote on resolutions. Article 189(2) of the Constitution provides that any proceedings of the House are not invalid even if it is subsequently discovered that persons who were not entitled to participate or vote or otherwise take part in the proceedings, did so. In Pratap Gouda Patil v. State of Karnataka and Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha v. Kuldeep Bishnoi, this Court observed that members should not be stopped from taking part in the proceedings of the House merely because disqualification proceedings were pending against them
Prior to the deletion of Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker’s enquiry as to the existence of a split within a political party was limited to a prima facie determination for deciding the disqualification proceedings. As a result of the deletion of Paragraph 3, the authority of the Speaker to form even a prima facie opinion regarding a split within a political party has been removed. Upon the deletion of Paragraph 3, the only defence for disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule are that of a merge under Paragraph 4. The Election Commission of India is the sole authority empowered to decide disputes between rival factions of a political party according to the provisions of the Symbols Order.
[Extracted from Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra (2023)]

Answer 1

Habeas corpus is prized above almost every other remedy because of its speed: a person who is unlawfully detained does not have to wait through a full trial or a lengthy appeal to be released, the writ is designed to get a court's answer on the legality of the detention quickly. Any judgment praising this feature is likely to have arisen in a context where detention without ordinary trial was actually happening, since that is when the writ's speed matters most.

That context was wartime Britain, where the Defence (General) Regulations 1939 allowed the executive to detain people without the usual criminal process, on preventive or security grounds. Cases challenging such detentions gave judges the occasion to reflect on why habeas corpus mattered so much precisely because ordinary safeguards, like a public trial, were suspended. Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs, decided in 1942, is one of these wartime detention cases, and it is here that Lord Wright made his observation about the writ's incalculable value in allowing an applicant's freedom to be determined immediately.

None of the other cases fit this backdrop. Trethowan is about the procedure for amending a state constitution, Ng Yuen Shiu is a later, peacetime case about legitimate expectation in administrative decision-making, and Bugdaycay, though about immigration and life-and-liberty concerns, arises in a different era and a different factual context from wartime executive detention.

So the observation is found in Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs, (1942) AC 284.

Answer 2

Another way to approach this is by process of elimination based on each case's actual subject area, since the quote is specifically about the speed and value of habeas corpus in securing personal liberty.

Trethowan: This case is about whether a state legislature can bind itself as to the manner and form of future legislation when altering its constitution. There is no detained individual and no habeas corpus issue at all, so it is clearly not the source.
Ng Yuen Shiu: This case establishes that a public authority must honour a legitimate expectation it has created before acting against a person's interest. It concerns fair administrative procedure, not the immediate release of a detained person through habeas corpus, so it does not match.
Bugdaycay: This case deals with the intensity of judicial review applicable when an asylum decision could expose someone to a risk to life. While liberty and life are at stake, the case is about the standard of review in immigration decisions, not a direct statement praising the mechanics of habeas corpus as a writ.
Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs: This case is precisely about a habeas corpus application challenging wartime detention, making it the natural setting for a judge to comment on the writ's core value, its ability to secure an immediate ruling on whether someone should be freed.

Eliminating the cases concerned with constitutional amendment procedure, legitimate expectation, and immigration review standards leaves only the wartime habeas corpus case as the true source of the quotation.

Therefore, the correct answer is Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1942) AC 284.

Answer 3

Another way to approach this is by process of elimination based on each case's actual subject area, since the quote is specifically about the speed and value of habeas corpus in securing personal liberty.

Trethowan: This case is about whether a state legislature can bind itself as to the manner and form of future legislation when altering its constitution. There is no detained individual and no habeas corpus issue at all, so it is clearly not the source.
Ng Yuen Shiu: This case establishes that a public authority must honour a legitimate expectation it has created before acting against a person's interest. It concerns fair administrative procedure, not the immediate release of a detained person through habeas corpus, so it does not match.
Bugdaycay: This case deals with the intensity of judicial review applicable when an asylum decision could expose someone to a risk to life. While liberty and life are at stake, the case is about the standard of review in immigration decisions, not a direct statement praising the mechanics of habeas corpus as a writ.
Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs: This case is precisely about a habeas corpus application challenging wartime detention, making it the natural setting for a judge to comment on the writ's core value, its ability to secure an immediate ruling on whether someone should be freed.

Eliminating the cases concerned with constitutional amendment procedure, legitimate expectation, and immigration review standards leaves only the wartime habeas corpus case as the true source of the quotation.

Therefore, the correct answer is Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1942) AC 284.

In which of the following cases did Lord Wright observe that “the incalculable value of habeas corpus is that it enables the immediate determination of the applicant’s freedom”?

Show Hint

The Correct Option is D

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Constitutional Laws

Questions Asked in AIBE exam