The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to Habeas Corpus petitions, and a detention order must be based on cogent material justifying the restraint of liberty.

ORDER :

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, by name, Nagaraj, son of Kumaravel, aged about 21 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in detention order No.C.No. 35/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2025 dated 27.03.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. The petitioner is the mother of the detenue and had already moved a Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court in H.C.P.(MD).No.584 of 2025 and the same was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 05.12.2025.

This is the second Habeas Corpus Petition filed before this Court.

4. In the considered view of this Court, the rule of res judicata does not apply when it comes to filing a Habeas Corpus Petition and therefore, there is no bar in the petitioner filing the present Habeas Corpus Petition and the same is maintainable.

5. This Court places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs Union Of India & Ors reported in 1981 SCC (Criminal) 463 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder.

“13. The position that emerges from a survey of the above decisions is that 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.”

6. The above judgment was subsequently relied upon by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Revathi Vs. Government of Tamil , represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 and others reported in 2024-2-L.W. (Crl.) 610 and this Court held that the dismissal of the earlier Habeas Corpus Petition will not be a bar in maintaining the subsequent petition by applying the principles of constructive res judicata.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also brought to our notice, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mirthunaj Kumar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2025-2-L.W. (Crl.) 321 and submitted that in a case where a ground is available even while filing the earlier petition and in spite of the same, that ground is not taken and the earlier Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed, a fresh Habeas Corpus Petition cannot be filed, since it will be barred by principles of constructive res judicata.

8. In our considered view, the law is now too well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in Lallubhai's case referred supra. The ratio in that judgment is that the principle of constructive res judicata will not apply in cases involving the liberty of a person and those are principles which are applied only in the civil proceedings. This judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been followed by our Court in the judgment in Revathi's referred supra. Therefore, we deem it fit to follow the judgment in Revathi's case, which has correctly applied the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lallubhai's case.

9. Accordingly, the objection raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on this issue is rejected.

10. Apart from raising other issues, an important point that was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that ultimately, the detenu had not filed any bail application till the detention order was passed on 27.03.2025 and the similar case that was relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not a similar case. It was also contended that two a