PRINCIPLE: The right to habeas corpus mandates that any detaining authority must affirmatively prove the lawfulness of detention. The burden of proof rests entirely upon the authority that holds a person in custody. No detention is presumed lawful; rather, the detaining authority must demonstrate through valid legal process that the restraint on liberty is authorized by law. Failure to provide such proof results in unlawful detention, regardless of the authority's subjective belief in its righteousness.

FACTUAL SCENARIO: Ravi, a factory worker, was detained at a police station for 72 hours on suspicion of theft. The detaining officer, Inspector Mehta, claimed that Ravi matched the description provided by the factory owner. When Ravi's family filed a habeas corpus petition, Inspector Mehta stated: "I am confident Ravi is guilty. The factory owner identified him, and we need time to investigate." The court summoned the police to justify the detention. Inspector Mehta produced no arrest warrant, no signed FIR (First Information Report), and no documented chain of evidence linking Ravi to the crime. The factory owner later admitted the identification was made in poor lighting and expressed uncertainty. Inspector Mehta argued that police work requires flexibility and that his experience justified holding Ravi. However, he could not produce any legal document authorizing the continued detention beyond 24 hours as required by procedure. The court examined whether the detaining authority had met its burden of proving lawful detention based solely on the principle provided.