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) 43680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.Jagadish Chandira, P.Vadamalai, JJ
Alagammal – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
H.C.P.(MD)No.692 of 2026



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

A Writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable for the mere recovery of a missing person when there is no proof of unlawful or illegal detention.

Headnote:The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce an allegedly missing person who was claimed to be in unlawful detention. The court observed that the subject was merely a missing person and noted that unlawful detention is a sine qua non for the issuance of such a writ. The court addressed the maintainability of a Habeas Corpus petition when the person is missing and not under illegal detention. Relying on previous Division Bench precedents, the court held that such petitions are not maintainable in the absence of evidence of unlawful restraint, emphasizing that the remedy lies in the investigation of missing persons rather than the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Following these principles, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the police authorities to pursue the investigation effectively to trace the missing individual.

Table of Content
1. nature of the habeas corpus petition filed. (Para 1 , 2)
2. requirement of unlawful detention for maintainability of habeas corpus. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

(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 daughter, namely P.Muneeswari, D/o.Pandian, aged about 23 years, before this Hon'ble Court and set her 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 Habeus Corpus Petition in respect of missing person whose detention is not stated to be unlawful/illegal is not maintainable.

5. 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 person 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