Police Laxity In Handling Missing Persons Cases Leading To Filing Of Habeas Corpus Pleas: Madras High Court

The Madurai bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice R Poornima noted that though the police department had sufficient infrastructure to deal with missing cases, they were not using it properly and often ignoring the guidelines which resulted in filing of the HCPs invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the courts.

“Therefore, it is very clear that the Police Department has been provided with all infrastructure and guidelines in the matter of tracing of missing persons. Despite the same, there appears to be some lacuna or ignorance of such guidelines by the police personnel, which culminates into filing of Habeas Corpus Petitions invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court, which is a sorry state of affairs and needs to be curtailed,” the court said.

The court added that constitutional courts across the country have condemned invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the courts in man-missing cases without prima facie case. The court added that habeas corpus plea was a speedy remedy available only in case of an illegal detention.

“...it is relevant to note that the Constitutional Courts across the country, had already condemned the recurrent abuse of process by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court with regard to "man/woman missing cases" without establishing a prima facie case of illegal detention, as Habeas Corpus Petition is a speedy remedy to be invoked exclusively in the cases of illegal detention,” the court added.

The court was hearing two habeas corpus pleas, one for the production of a 45-year-old male and the second, for the production of an 18-year-old girl. On perusing the affidavits in both cases, the court found that the alleged detenues were missing from their homes and there was nothing to show that they were illegally detained.

In the first case, the court noted that the detenue was an auto driver by profession and was an alcoholic who used to pick up quarrels with his wife and daughter. The court further noted that while leaving the house, the detenue had informed his daughter that he will never come back to the house. However, the wife had alleged that her husband was implicated in a drunken driving case and could be missing in connection with the case. The court, however, found no evidence to support this claim.

With respect to the second case, the court noted that the detenue, a college student, had developed a love affair with her teacher and had eloped with him. The court further noted that the police was equipped for tracing the couple, but have not been able to trace them. However, the court was informed the police would pursue all their initiatives to effectively trace them.

The court observed that in cases of man/woman missing, when the persons concerned had went on their own volition, other alternative remedies were available and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court need not be invoked in such cases.

In both the cases, the court noted that the detenues had left the house on their own and thus a habeas corpus plea would not be maintainable.

Noting a sharp increase in the number of habeas corpus petitions for man missing cases, the court had sought details from the Additional Public Prosecutor on the modalities adopted by the State for tracing missing persons. The APP produced the guidelines issued by the Director General of Police and submitted that the police was taking effective steps for early tracing of missing persons.

Though the court noted that it would not support abusing the court's process by filing habeas corpus petitions for missing cases, the court also noted that in many cases, the police was not investigating man-missing cases properly and filing closure reports contending “undetected”.

With respect to the present cases, though the court said that the petitions were not maintainable, it directed the police to continue investigation in tracing the missing persons. The court also directed the investigation to be overseen by the Assistant Commissioner of Police.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. K. Dinesh

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah,State Public Prosecutor Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr.B.Nambiselvan, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Raja Lakshmi v State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 342

Case No: H.C.P.(MD) Nos.793 and 658 of 2025