“The Availability-of-Grounds Test” – Madras High Court Narrows the Scope for Successive Habeas Corpus Petitions

1. Introduction

Mirtunaj Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 MHC 2029) presented the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court with a pivotal procedural question: When, if ever, is a second writ of habeas corpus maintainable against the same preventive-detention order?

The petitioner’s brother, Rohit Kumar, had been detained as a “Goonda” under s.2(bb) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 (Act 14 of 1982). A first habeas corpus petition (HCP(MD) No.1399 of 2024) challenging the 4 Sep 2024 detention order was dismissed on 29 Apr 2025. Instead of approaching the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed a second habeas corpus petition (HCP(MD) No.718 of 2025) before the same High Court, raising some grounds that were either:

• already argued in the first petition;
• available but not urged earlier; or
• claimed to have been ignored by the earlier Bench.

The State objected, relying on an emerging line of High Court authority that disfavors repeat petitions. The Division Bench (S.M. Subramaniam & G. Arul Murugan JJ.) dismissed the petition and, in doing so, formulated a clear test – the “Availability-of-Grounds Test” – that now governs the maintainability of successive habeas corpus petitions in Tamil Nadu.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. Constructive res judicata inapplicable per se: Following the Supreme Court decision in Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981), the Court reiterated that the civil-law doctrine of constructive res judicata does not automatically bar a fresh habeas corpus petition.

2. Availability-of-Grounds Test: A second habeas corpus petition is maintainable only when the grounds now urged were not in existence or not discoverable with reasonable diligence when the first petition was heard. If the grounds were available but omitted, the second petition is barred.

3. Policy concerns: Allowing repeat petitions on previously available grounds would (a) encourage “bench hunting,” (b) convert habeas corpus litigation into an endless bail-like process, and (c) undermine finality and judicial discipline.

4. Application to the facts: All the grounds raised in HCP No.718/2025 were either argued or reasonably available during HCP No.1399/2024. Hence, the second petition was dismissed as non-maintainable.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981 SCC (Cri) 463) – Supreme Court recognised that constructive res judicata does not bar successive habeas corpus petitions provided there are fresh grounds.
• Revathi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2024 (2) LW (Cri) 610) – A Division Bench entertained a second petition where new facts had arisen post-dismissal.
• Geetha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006 (2) MLJ (Cri) 699) & Mohan @ Mohan Reddy v. Commissioner of Police (2009 (2) CIJ 197) – Emphasised that previously available but un-urged grounds cannot found a second petition.
• Boominathan v. State of Tamil Nadu (HCP(MD)SR No.10405 of 2023, 13 Jun 2023) – Directly held that a second petition on the same grounds is not maintainable.

The Court harmonised these authorities by distinguishing between (i) newly arisen / newly discovered grounds (permissible) and (ii) old but unused grounds (impermissible).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Constitutional Doctrine v. Procedural Finality: Article 226 confers wide powers to issue writs “in the nature of” habeas corpus. Yet, to prevent abuse of process, the Court read an implied limitation: once a detention order is scrutinised on merits, only truly fresh circumstances can reopen the challenge.

2. Public Policy Filters: The Bench relied on three practical concerns: (i) multiplicity of proceedings, (ii) bench shopping, and (iii) erosion of the distinction between preventive detention and punitive incarceration.

3. Test Articulated:
A second petition is maintainable only if:

• The grounds now relied upon did not exist or could not reasonably have been known when the first petition was filed/heard; and
• Those grounds are substantial enough to affect the legality of continued detention.

Otherwise, the remedy lies in appeal to the Supreme Court, not in a fresh writ to the High Court.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

• Codifies Procedural Discipline: The “Availability-of-Grounds Test” provides a bright-line rule for the Registry and litigants, reducing repetitive habeas corpus filings.

• Guidance to Detaining Authorities: Detention dossiers must now anticipate that only genuinely new facts (e.g., subsequent representation rejection, change in law, fresh medical evidence) can revive judicial scrutiny.

• Inter-jurisdictional Persuasive Value: Though binding only within Tamil Nadu, the reasoning may influence other High Courts given the lack of Supreme Court clarity post-1981. Expect citation in future challenges to successive detention petitions, especially under state preventive-detention statutes.

• Strategic Litigation Shift: Detainees are incentivised to raise all conceivable grounds upfront and, if unsuccessful, proceed directly to the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition rather than file repetitive writs.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Habeas Corpus: Literally “produce the body.” A writ that commands authorities to bring a detained person before the court to justify the legality of detention.
• Preventive Detention v. Punitive Detention: Preventive detention seeks to thwart future harm; punitive detention punishes past crime. Constitutional safeguards differ.
• Constructive Res Judicata: A rule from civil procedure: matters that could and should have been raised in earlier litigation are deemed to have been decided against the party. Traditionally inapplicable to habeas corpus because personal liberty is at stake.
• Bench Hunting / Shopping: Litigants’ attempt to present the same issue to multiple judges or benches hoping for a favourable order.

5. Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s decision in Mirtunaj Kumar strikes a calibrated balance between the constitutional zeal to protect personal liberty and the judicial necessity for finality. By crafting the “Availability-of-Grounds Test,” the Court clarified that:

• Successive habeas corpus petitions are not automatically barred; but
• They are maintainable only on genuinely fresh grounds unavailable earlier.

In effect, the ruling discourages litigative serialism without diluting the sanctity of liberty. Going forward, counsel must exercise heightened diligence in marshalling all possible challenges at the first instance, and detaining authorities must maintain procedural rigour knowing that only truly new defects can reopen scrutiny. The judgment thus serves as a significant procedural precedent in Indian preventive-detention jurisprudence.