The Madras High Court has clarified that a second habeas corpus petition challenging the same detention order is maintainable only if it raises fresh grounds that were not available to the detenue at the time of filing or adjudication of the first petition.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice G. Arul Murugan ruled that except in such circumstances, filing a second habeas corpus petition would not be permissible. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel, which held that the concept of public policy does not apply to cases of illegal detention and therefore does not bar subsequent writs of habeas corpus if new grounds arise.
However, the Bench cautioned that detenues cannot misuse this principle by repeatedly filing petitions on the same grounds. It stressed that if the grounds urged in the second petition were available during the first petition but not raised, the detenue cannot later use them as fresh grounds.
In the case before the court, a challenge was raised to the maintainability of a second habeas corpus petition filed after the dismissal of an earlier one. The petitioner argued that the second petition was maintainable since detention violated his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21, relying on past rulings of the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court.
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the plea, submitting that no new grounds had been raised. It was argued that allowing repeated petitions would amount to an abuse of process, as the grounds now relied upon could have been raised in the first petition.
The Court observed that the doctrine of constructive res judicata applies to civil proceedings but not to cases of illegal detention. At the same time, it emphasized that a balance must be struck: permitting unlimited successive habeas corpus petitions could lead to bench hunting, multiplicity of litigation, and misuse of the writ jurisdiction by treating habeas corpus as a substitute for bail.
Since the petitioner in this case failed to present any fresh grounds, the Court declined to entertain the second habeas corpus petition.
Picture Source :
