R. K. Manisana, J. — This writ petition has been filed by one Shri Nibaran Bora in his own name as petitioner. Shri Nibaran Bora is not an Advocate. It appears that he Is a public activist, and the President of Sangjyukta Loka Parishad, Guwahati. It is stated in the petition that one Shri Rajen Doloi of Dhemaji was arrested by the army authority on 15. 12. 90 from his house in exercise of the powers under section 4 of the Armed .Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958. After the arrest, the army authority has not made over Rajen Doloi to Officer in charge of the nearest police station as provided under section 5 of the Act till filing of this writ application on 24.1.91. In the affidavit of the Union of India it is stated that the army authority arrested Rajen Doloi on 25.1,91 and released him on 27,1.91 2. A question has been raised whether the petitioner Shri Nibaran Bora can file the application for a writ of habeas corpus as well as plead the case. Mr. A R. Barthakur, learned Advocate General, Assam has submitted that, in the name of "Public Interest Litigation", traditional litigation has been suffering and if the High Court does not restrict the free flow of such cases, instead of dispensing justice, it may have serious consequences. 3. Habeas corpus is to secure release from any form of unlawful | detention. The remedy by habeas corpus is available where there is a I deprivation of personal liberty without legal authority or justification. The writ is a "writ of right” and is granted ex debito justitiae (as a matter of right). A five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has, in Gulam Sanar vs. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1335 , held that habeas corpus is an order directing to have the body of the person detained to be brought before the Court in order to ascertain whether the detention is legal or illegal, and set him free if there is no legal justification or authority for the detention. In Mohd Ikram Hassafn vs. State of UP, AIR 1964 SC 1625 , the Supreme Court has held that a direction given by the High Court in a proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus for the production of the body of a person has to be carried out, and evasion of or disobedience to the writ renders the offenders liable to penalties. As regards the procedure on habeas corpus, our High Court has not made rules governing application under Article 226 of the Constitution for direction or writ of habeas corpus. At this stage, it would be helpful to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ikram Hussain's case, AIR 1964 SC 1625 (supra). In that case it has been held that the High Court is not prohibited from ordering an enquiry into a fact in issue. All procedure is always open to a Court which is not expressly prohibited and no rule of the Court has laid down that evidence shall not be received, if the Court requires it. In certain cases, writ nisi for production of a deteun may be preceded by some more enquiry, 4. The question then is.-Who is the person entitled to apply for a writ of habeas corpus ? The principles accepted in English Court are thus. In 11 Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, paragraph 1476, it is stated,- "The person illegally imprisoned or detained in confinement without legal justification is, both at common law and by statute, entitled to apply for a writ of habeas corpus, bat it is not essential that the application should proceed directly from him. Any person is entitled to institute proceedings to obtain a writ of habeas Corpus for the purpose of liberating another from an illegal imprisonment, and any person who is legally entitled to the custody of another may apply for the writ in order to regain that custody. In any case where access is denied to a person alleged to be unjustifiably detained, so that there alleged no instructions from the prisoner, the application may be made by any relation or friend on an Affidavit setting forth the reasons for its being made. In any case where access is denied to a person alleged to be unjustifiably detained, so that there alleged no instructions from the prisoner, the application may be made by any relation or friend on an Affidavit setting forth the reasons for its being made. A mere stranger or volunteer, however, who has no authority to appear on behalf of a prisoner or right to represent him will not it seems be allowed to apply for habeas corpus." (emphasis added) In paragraph 1477, it is also stated- "An application for a writ of habeas corpus, whether on motion to the Court or at chambers, should be made by the counsel, as the Court will not as a rule allow an applicant to move in person. However, in exceptional cases applicant may be heard in person on the ground of extreme urgency." (emphasis added) 5. In re Wring, re Cook (1960)1 AH ER 536: (I960) I WLR 138 a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division has held.- "If the prisoner none the less persists in his desire to apply for habeas corpus, the courses open to him are : (a) to consult a solicitor about the possibility of instructing counsel to make an application on his behalf; or (h) to ask someone to make an application for him or arrange for one to be made, and in either case to swear the necessary affidavit; or (c) to apply to the local committee of the Law Society for legal aid for the purpose of making an application. There is no right of access to the Divisional Court otherwise than by the means described above. As a concession, however, the Court is prepared to consider any written statement by the prisoner setting out the grounds on which he considers that he is unlawfully detained and sent by letter to the Master of the Crown Office. This is not an application, since it h not in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, but the Divisional Court (or in vacation the vacation judge) does, as a matter of practice, consider the letter and statement in order to see whether the prisoner has an arguable point. If he has. Court arranges for the Official Solicitor to instruct counsel to make a formal application under the rules on the prisoner's behalf. If he has. Court arranges for the Official Solicitor to instruct counsel to make a formal application under the rules on the prisoner's behalf. If the court is of opinion that there is no arguable point, the prisoner is informed that the Court sees no reason to depart from the formal procedure, leaving it to the prisoner to proceed in accordance with the rules. Prisoners will not be permitted to make such an informal approach more than once. The Divisional Court has ruled that no applicant for a writ of habeas corpus can be heard in person unless some exceptional ground is shown for departure from the established practice. Compare Re Greene, (1911) 57 TLR 536. (emphasis added) 6. In re Greene (1941)57 TLR 533 it is said : "We think that no applicant for a writ of habeas corpus should be heard in person unless some sufficient ground is shown for a departure from established practice ; and the mere fact that an applicant prefers to act as his own advocate should not he regarded as good ground.'' (emphasis added) 7. The principle accepted by the English Court as to the question who is entitled to apply for a writ of habeas corpus and who is to be heard may now be summarised, (1) In the absence of an affidavit showing that the person detained was unable to make the application, a mere stranger acting without authority is not to be entitled to make an application for habeas corpus on behalf of a person who was alleged to be wrongfully detailed. Only in exceptional circumstances an application for a writ of habeas corpus may be made by an agent, a friend or a relative on behalf of the detenu and be permitted to appear on his behalf at the time of hearing. (2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus, whether on motion to the Court or at chambers, should be made by the counsel, as the Court will not as a rule allow an applicant to move in person. In exceptional cases applicant may be heard in person on the ground of extreme urgency. (2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus, whether on motion to the Court or at chambers, should be made by the counsel, as the Court will not as a rule allow an applicant to move in person. In exceptional cases applicant may be heard in person on the ground of extreme urgency. (3) No applicant for a writ of habeas corpus can be heard in person unless some sufficient ground is shown for a departure from the established practice, and the mere fact that an applicant prefers to act as his own Advocate should not He regarded as a good ground.(4) Where a letter is received from a person who was in detention, the Court arranges for Official Solicitor to instruct a counsel to make a formal application under the rules on behalf of the detenu if the letter discloses an arguable point. (5) Any person who is entitled to custody of another may apply for the writ, 8. In Gulam's case, AIR 1967 SC 1335 (supra\ the Supreme Court, at para 9, has indicated that, so far as High Courts are concerned, the same principle accepted by the English Court will equally apply. In Charanjit Lal vs. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 Mukherjee, J observed : "Not only the man who is imprisoned or detained in confinement by any person, provided he is not an absolute stranger, can institute proceedings to obtain a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of liberating another from an illegal imprisonment.". In Calcutta Gas Co vs. State of WB, AIR 1962 SC 1044 , the Supreme Court has held : "The right that can be enforced under Article 226 also shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified." The above principle laid down by the Supreme Court is in the light of the principle accepted by the English Court. But in India, in view of very wide power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the principle accepted by the English Court is to be relaxed and it has been relaxing in Indian Court. But in India, in view of very wide power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the principle accepted by the English Court is to be relaxed and it has been relaxing in Indian Court. Unlike in England, where a letter is received from a prisoner or detenu and if the letter disclose an arguable point, the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, has been treating such a letter as a writ petition. If any authority is required we may refer to the decision in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. A Parent of Student, AIR 1985 SC 910 . 9. The above decisions of the Supreme Court make it clear that person who can file a writ of habeas corpus is (1) The detenue himself; or (2) a friend or relative of detenu. The question then is. - Can a stranger or volunteer not at all apply for a writ of habeas corpus ? It has already been discussed about the requirement and importance of the necessary affidavits. The reason for allowing a friend or relative of the detenu to apply for a writ of habeas corpus is that the friend or relation is in a position to make an affidavit with regard to the facts and circumst­ances rendering the detention illegal and as to why the detenu himself is not able to apply for a writ. A stranger or volunteer cannot perhaps make such an affidavit. But even a letter is treated as a writ petition for a writ of habeas corpus if certain circumstances are satisfied, as already stated. Therefore if a volunteer or stranger who can assist the Court by making an affidavit for establishing the illegality of the detention and explaining why the detenu himself is not able to apply for a writ, there is no reason for not entertaining the petition in the interest of justice. Therefore if a volunteer or stranger who can assist the Court by making an affidavit for establishing the illegality of the detention and explaining why the detenu himself is not able to apply for a writ, there is no reason for not entertaining the petition in the interest of justice. Therefore, it is concluded the ordinarily an application under Article 226 for a writ of habeas corpus shall be made by the detenu himself In certain cases, any person other than the detenu, who may be relative of the detenu, or a volunteer or stranger may make an application for habeas corpus if he, whoever, can satisfy the Court to establish the illegalities of the detention and reasons why the detenu himself is unable to apply for the writ swearing necessary affidavit as stated above, 10. With regard to the appearance and audience of the applicant it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Coming to the case on hand in Civil Rule (HC) 30 of 1991 between the same Shri Nibaran Bora vs. Union of India decided on 5.4.91 [reported in 1991 (1) GLJ 356] we have observed that time has come to check free flow of cases instituted in the name of ''Public Interest Litigation". But in exercise of the powers available under the relevant provisions of law for remedying hardship and miseries of the needy and neglected people, the High Court will hear the petition relating to violation of fundamental rights or basic human rights, or such acts which shock the judicial conscience by avoiding the practice and procedure, or rules of the Court. We have further observed that habitual representation of the parties by a non-advocate in the Court would amount to practicing law in violation of the provisions of the Advocates Act. In that case, we took the judicial notice of notorious and widely known facts that Shri Nibaran Bora has been habitually filing a series of cases under Article 226 of the Construction of India in his name and/or in he name of others under the name "f "Public Interest Litigation" and arguing those cases, and have held that such I habitua acts amount to practicing the profession of law in violation of the provisions of the Advocates Act. 11. 11. In the present case, on reading of the application filed by Shri Nibaran Bora, it appears that the application was made without the concurrence of the person detained ; that Shri Bora is a volunteer or a public activist; and that the detenu was in spliary confinement with no means of communication. The allegations in the petition further indicate gross violation of fundamental right or basic human rights. But there is no statement or affidavit why Shri Bora has filed the application except that he is a public activist. Be that as it may, a Division Bench of this Court has entertained the petition on motion to the Court and issued show cause order. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, and keeping in view all the principles discussed above, Shri Nibaran Bora shall not have the right of audience or to plead the case. However, the application filed by him is treated as an application made on behalf of the detenu in the light of he decision in Ex parte Hinds (1961) 1 All ER 707. In such a situation, we have to make an arrangement for entrusting the case to the Legal Aid Committee or to appoint an amicus curiae. The matter requires expeditious disposal and, therefore, we appoint Shri Tara Chandra Mazumdar, Advocate as amicus curiae. Shri Mazumdar is given liberty to file supplementary affidavit or additional affidavits in consultation with the relations of the detenu or any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case.