Second Habeas Corpus Petition Against Same Detention Order Is Maintainable Only If New Grounds Are Available: Madras High Court

“In clear terms, the second Habeas Corpus Petition 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 and in no other circumstances, the second Habeas Corpus Petition is maintainable,” the court said.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel, had held that the concept of public police was entirely inapplicable in illegal detention and does not bar a subsequent writ of habeas corpus on fresh grounds. The court added that detenues should not take undue advantage of this finding and file habeas corpus petitions on the same ground.

“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,” the bench noted.

The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition. A challenge was however raised regarding the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition since the first habeas corpus petition by the very same petitioner was dismissed by a division bench.

The petitioner contended that the second petition was maintainable since the detention infringed his personal liberty, which was a fundamental right. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court wherein the courts were in favour of entertaining second petition.

Opposing this contention, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that a second habeas corpus petition against the same detention order was not maintainable. It was submitted that if at all any grounds that are urged in the second petition as new grounds were available at the time of raising the first petition, it would be seen as if the petitioner failed to raise those grounds and thus, he cannot once again raise the same. It was further argued that in the present case, no new grounds were available and thus, the petition was not maintainable.

The court noted that the doctrine of constructive res judicata was confined to civil actions and not criminal proceedings. The court added that res judicata was not applicable to cases of illegal detention. However, the court added that the distinction must be drawn to ensure that new grounds are raised in the second petition.

“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 court said.

In the present case, noting that there were no new grounds, the court was not inclined to entertain the petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian for Ms. C. Vijayalakshmi

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Mirthunaj Kumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 282

Case No: H.C.P(MD)No.718 of 2025