A second Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the same detention order is only maintainable on new grounds not previously available, reflecting the information on res judicata in illegal detention cases.

ORDER

An issue of importance regarding the maintainability of a Habeas Corpus Petition has been raised in the present Petition, in view of the fact that the first Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the very same petitioner/Mirtunaj Kumar, in HCP(MD)No.1399 of 2024, was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29.04.2025.

2.The petitioner has not preferred any Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, instead chosen to prefer a second Habeas Corpus Petition in HCP(MD)No.718 of 2025 challenging the very same detention order dated 04.09.2024, which was under challenge in H.C.P(MD)No.1399 of 2024.

3.Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the second Habeas Corpus Petition is maintainable since the detention order infringes the personal liberty of the detenue, which is a fundamental right.

4.In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs. Union of India and others [1981 SCC (Crl) 463]. In paragraphs 13 and 14, the Apex Court made the following observations:

“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.

14.In the present petition fresh additional grounds have been taken, to challenge the legality of the continued detention of the detenu. We would therefore hold that the subsequent writ petition is not barred as res judicata and over-rule the preliminary objection raised by the respondents.

5.The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Revathi vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others [2024 (2) LW (Crl) 610], entertained the second Habeas Corpus Petition and granted relief. Thus, it is contended that the principles laid down in the above two judgments are to be considered in the present case.

6.Rebutting the contentions of the petitioner, Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Boominathan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and others [H.C.P(MD)SR.No.10405 of 2023, dated 13.06.2023], ruled that a second Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the same detention order is not maintainable. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 13.06.2023, held that if at all any grounds that are urged in the second Habeas Corpus Petition as a new ground and those grounds could have been raised in the first Habeas Corpus Petition itself, as they were already available at the time of filing the Habeas Corpus Petition and the petitioner or the detenue failed to raise those grounds, that cannot once again or again and again be raised.

7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the grounds raised in the present Habeas Corpus Petition were raised by the detenue in the earlier Habeas Corpus Petition in HCP(MD)No.1399 of 2024, either directly or indirectly and those grounds were already considered by the Division Bench of this Court and the HCP was dismissed. Since no new grounds are available, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable.

8.Heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties to the lis on hand.

9.The application of doctrine of constru