Why Allahabad HC Said Supreme Court Rulings In 'Vihaan Kumar' & Others Opened 'Floodgates', Led To 'Chaotic Situation'
Sparsh Upadhyay
6 Jun 2026 9:16 PM IST
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court recently said that the Supreme Court's recent judgments on illegal arrests, including the ruling in Vihaan Kumar (2025), have opened a "Pandora's box" for accused persons to challenge their detention or remand orders, even at a 'belated stage'.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi added that these judgments have led to a 'chaotic situation' by allowing an accused to file a habeas corpus plea before the HC "at will", asserting their fundamental rights irrespective of the stage of investigation/trial.
Apart from Vihan Kumar (2025), the High Court also referred to the Apex Court's recent Judgments in Prabir Purkayastha (2024), Pankaj Bansal (2023), Kasireddy Upender Reddy (2025) and Mihir Rajesh Shah (2025).
For context, in all of these judgments, which the HC categorised as "second set of judgments", the Top Court, inter alia, held that if an arrest is invalid on the ground of failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused, then the subsequent remand order will also fail and is rendered illegal.
Examining this line of judgments, the High Court observed that they do not impose any fetter on a person's right or time limit to prefer a habeas corpus petition before the court, and that the practical impact of this has been severe.
Explaining the consequences, the Court remarked: "…the flood gates have been opened for the persons in detention to approach the court at any stage of investigation / trial and even after cognizance of offence taken on charge sheet, framing of charge and during trial and after rejection of their bail applications by the trial court, High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court at any stage of investigation or trial on the ground that their initial remand order was illegal and, therefore, their rights guaranteed under Article 22 (I) of the Constitution of India have been violated”.
The bench also acknowledged the submission made by the Additional Advocate General, appearing for the state, who also painted a grim picture in this regard.
It was argued that there is a legal presumption that custody is 'lawful' when the Court is approached at the stage when the petitioner is undergoing sentence, at a belated stage of trial, or after the filing of the charge-sheet.
In such a situation and at such a stage, it was strongly contended that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Col. Dr B. Ramachandra Rao vs State of Orissa and Others, 1972, and the judgment of the High Court in Shashank Mishra.
Finding merits in the submission of the AAG, the Allahabad High Court referred to an older line of Supreme Court rulings, which it categorised as "first set of judgments", including in cases like Sanjay Dutt (1994), A.K. Gopalan and Another (1965), B. Ramachandra Rao (1971) and Kanu Sanyal (1973)
Taking into account the core principle established in this first set of cases, the High Court opined that while considering a habeas corpus petition, the court must examine the legality of the detention “at the time of return of the rule” (the date of the hearing) and it must not look into as to what was the status of the initial arrest.
The division bench noted that in this set of judgments, the Top Court ruled that if an initial, allegedly illegal detention order is subsequently replaced by a valid judicial order, such as a committal under Section 209 CrPC or a remand under Section 309 CrPC during a trial, then the initial order or illegality "goes out of realm of consideration".
"…if the initial detention order was not in accordance with law, but at the time of consideration of the petition a new detention order was passed which was in accordance with law the earlier order of detention is not required to be considered since it has lost its relevance", the bench referred to the first set of judgments as holding.
Thus, the Court noted that the initial detention cannot be held illegal "when the subsequent stages of investigation/trial have passed".
Now, comparing both sets of judgments, the High Court categorically remarked that the recent/second set of Supreme Court judgments in Vihaan Kumar and Mihir Rajesh Shah, and others, are "not binding precedents".
The High Court opined that these recent rulings are subject to the doctrine of stare decisis because they failed to consider earlier binding precedents established by larger Supreme Court benches.
In this regard, the bench referred to the 1955 judgment of the Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. vs State of Bihar, wherein it was held that the Top Court should not depart from its previous decision merely because a view contrary to the one taken therein appears preferable.
"The object of Article 141 is that the decisions of the Supreme Court on questions of law should settle the controversy and should be followed as law by all courts. If such decisions are allowed to be reopened merely because a different view appears to be a better one, then the very purpose for which Article 141 was enacted would be defeated," the Court referenced.
The Bench observed that allowing settled questions to be reopened upon a mere suggestion that a later Bench might arrive at a different conclusion severely damages the prestige of the Court and the value of its pronouncements.
Therefore, in an attempt to resolve the confusion, the Allahabad High Court held that once a competent Court takes cognizance on the charge sheet, an accused cannot maintain a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his arrest or the initial remand order passed under Section 167(2) CrPC/187(2) BNSS.
In other words, the Court concluded that the validity of the initial and subsequent detention orders passed in pursuance thereof can be considered the basis for maintaining the habeas corpus petition “only till the investigation is in progress by the investigating officer of the case”.
"Once investigation is concluded, charge sheet is submitted an order of cognizance on charge sheet is passed, the right to challenge the initial illegality in the order of remand cannot be enforced", the bench further held.
However, at the post-cognizance stage, the accused won't be remediless as the bench clarified that the accused can challenge the order of cognizance of the court by resort to appropriate statutory remedy provided under the provisions of the CrPC/BNSS.
It added that the accused can also move a bail application before the appropriate court on the ground of violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
Read more about the facts of the case and Court's observations here : Habeas Corpus Plea Not Maintainable Against Arrest & Remand Order Once Cognizance Taken; Accused Must Seek Regular Bail: Allahabad HC
Case Title: Neeraj And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 305
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 305
