SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43678

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. Jagadish Chandira, P. Vadamalai, JJ
Sanjeeviraj – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
H.C.P.(MD)No.682 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Ponraj
For the Respondents: T. Lenin Kumar

A writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable in cases where a person is simply missing, as unlawful or illegal detention is an essential prerequisite for invoking such a prerogative writ.

Headnote:The case involves a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the production of two missing individuals. The court examined whether a habeas corpus petition is maintainable for a person who is simply missing, rather than being under unlawful or illegal detention. The core issue addressed is the necessity of 'unlawful detention' as a sine qua non for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The court referred to established judicial precedents underscoring that in the absence of evidence of illegal custody, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be invoked for cases involving missing persons. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the police authorities to effectively pursue the investigation and take necessary steps to trace the missing persons.

Table of Content
1. summary of nature of the petition filed. (Para 1 , 2)
2. unlawful detention is required for a habeas corpus writ. (Para 3 , 4)

(Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents therein to produce the body/person of the petitioner's wife, namely Senthamilselvi, W/o. Sanjeeviraj, aged about 24 years, and the petitioner's daughter, namely Saara, D/o. Sanjeeviraj, aged about 11 months, before this Hon'ble Court and set them at liberty.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the State.

3. From the facts this Court finds that this Habeas Corpus Petition is in respect of person who is simply missing and not under unlawful detention. Unlawful detention is sine qua non for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus.

4. The Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.(MD) Nos.793 and 658 of 2025 has relied on the following orders:

a) Simmi Bai .vs. Shrimaan Police Mahanirishak Mahodaya and others (2025 SCC OnLine MP 893)

b) H.C.P.No.2191 of 2017 (Kalaiarasi vs. State) dated 7.5.2018 c) K.Sukumari vs. The Superintendent of Police (Crl.O.P.(MD) No.

19255 of 2016 dated 18.9.2018)

and has held that Habeas Corpus Petition in respect of missing person whose detention is not stated to be unlawful/illegal is not maintainable.

4. In view of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to effectively pursue the investigation for tracing the missing persons in the present case. Accordingly, the investigating officer shall continue the investigation and take all necessary steps to trace the missing persons.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top