Second Habeas Corpus Petition Maintainable Only On Fresh Grounds | Madras High Court Clarifies Scope Under Preventive Detention Law
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madras, Madurai Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only if the grounds raised were not available to the detenue at the time of filing or adjudication of the first petition. The Bench dismissed the present habeas corpus petition, stating that the grounds raised were either already considered or were available but not raised during the earlier proceedings, and therefore the second petition could not be entertained. The Court clarified that the only remedy available in such cases after dismissal of the first habeas corpus petition is to prefer an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
The matter concerned a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash a detention order passed under Section 2(bb) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The detention order, numbered 52/2024 and dated 04.09.2024, was passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate of Theni District. The detenue, Rohit Kumar, son of Umesh Prasad Singh, aged 27 years, was detained in Central Prison, Madurai, under the classification of “Goonda.” The petitioner, Mirthunaj Kumar, brother of the detenue, sought production of Rohit Kumar before the Court and prayed for his release.
The petitioner had previously filed a habeas corpus petition in H.C.P (MD) No.1399 of 2024, challenging the same detention order. That petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Court on 29.04.2025. The petitioner did not prefer a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India following the dismissal of the first petition. Instead, he initiated the present proceedings in H.C.P (MD) No.718 of 2025, again challenging the detention order dated 04.09.2024.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the second habeas corpus petition was maintainable because the detention order infringed upon the detenue’s fundamental right to personal liberty. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India and others [1981 SCC (Crl) 463]. The Court recorded the relevant observations from the judgment: “The application of the doctrine of constructive res judicata is confined to civil actions and civil proceedings. This principle of public policy is entirely inapplicable to illegal detention and does not bar a subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution on fresh grounds, which were not taken in the earlier petition for the same relief.”
The petitioner’s counsel also referred to a Division Bench decision of the High Court in Revathi v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others [2024 (2) LW (Crl) 610], where a second habeas corpus petition was entertained and relief was granted. The argument presented was that the legal principles laid down in these decisions warranted consideration in the present matter.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposing the petition, referred to the Division Bench judgment in Boominathan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [H.C.P (MD) SR No.10405 of 2023, dated 13.06.2023]. It was argued that a second habeas corpus petition challenging the same detention order is not maintainable when the grounds were already available at the time of filing the first petition. The Court in that case held that if new grounds raised in a subsequent petition were available earlier but not urged, they could not form the basis of another habeas corpus petition.
The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in the present matter, the grounds raised had either been directly or indirectly urged in the earlier petition or were available at that time but were not raised. Therefore, it was argued, the present petition was not maintainable.
The Court considered the submissions and clarified the application of legal principles concerning second habeas corpus petitions. It recorded: “The application of doctrine of constructive res judicata is confined to civil actions and civil proceedings. Therefore, it is inapplicable in cases of illegal detention and does not bar a subsequent petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the circumstances under which a second Habeas Corpus Petition is maintainable is to be considered with reference to the grounds, which were available during the adjudication of the first Habeas Corpus Petition and the grounds, which were not available to the detenue during the adjudication of the first Habeas Corpus Petition. This distinction is essential for entertaining a second Habeas Corpus Petition against the same detention order.”
The Bench further observed: “In the event of entertaining second Habeas Corpus Petition without drawing distinction in the context of the grounds raised, it will lead to an anomalous situation, where multiple Habeas Corpus Petitions may be instituted challenging the same detention order. Secondly, there is a possibility of bench hunting by the litigants by filing repeated Habeas Corpus Petitions. Thirdly, the Habeas Corpus Petition will be treated as a bail petition, which is impermissible, since the detention order originally challenged is either confirmed or set aside. The only remedy available to the aggrieved person is to prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.”
Addressing the reliance placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel, the Court stated: “The findings of the Apex Court cannot be taken undue advantage by the detenues for the purpose of maintaining a second Habeas Corpus Petition on the same grounds which were raised in the first Habeas Corpus Petition or the grounds which were very much available and not taken by the detenue at the time of filing the first Habeas Corpus Petition. But if the ground raised in the second Habeas Corpus Petition was not at all available to the detenue at the time of filing of the first Habeas Corpus Petition, then the second Habeas Corpus Petition, if filed on fresh grounds, then alone, the second Habeas Corpus Petition is maintainable.”
The Bench also referred to the earlier Division Bench judgement in Revathi’s case. It noted: “The distinction drawn between the grounds available and not taken in the first HCP and the grounds not available but taken in the second Habeas Corpus Petition is to be taken into consideration.” However, it reiterated the principle recorded in Boominathan’s case, citing earlier decisions such as Kasturi v. State of Tamil Nadu (H.C.P No.94 of 2004) and S. Sarasa v. State of Tamil Nadu (H.C.P No.142 of 2004), where the Court observed that points available at the time of the first habeas corpus petition cannot be re-agitated in subsequent petitions.
The Court concluded: “Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that a second Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the same detention order is maintainable only if the grounds taken in the second Habeas Corpus Petition were not available to the detenue at the time of filing or adjudication of the first Habeas Corpus Petition.”
Based on the analysis of facts and precedents, the Division Bench held: “In view of the discussions made above, this Court has no hesitation in arriving a firm conclusion that the present second Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable.” The Court thus dismissed the habeas corpus petition. The operative portion of the order read: “Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian for Ms. C. Vijayalakshmi
For the Respondents: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Mirthunaj Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:2029
Case Number: H.C.P (MD) No.718 of 2025
Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice G. Arul Murugan
