The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has refused to entertain two separate habeas corpus petitions filed by anxious family members seeking the production of their missing relatives. Instead, the court underlined that the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus is only available in cases of illegal detention, not for routine missing cases. The Division Bench, comprising Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira and Justice R. Poornima, delivered the common order on August 29, 2025, while hearing H.C.P. Nos. 793 and 658 of 2025.
Background of the Petitions
One petition was filed by Raja Lakshmi, who sought the release of her husband Selvaraj, a 45-year-old auto driver. She alleged that Selvaraj had gone missing and hinted at a possible link to a drunken driving case. However, her own affidavit admitted that Selvaraj was an alcoholic, often quarreled with the family, and had told their daughter that he would never return home.
The second petition came from S. Kadhija Begam, who prayed for the production of her 18-year-old daughter Rabiyamma. The girl, a college student, was reported missing from Thanjavur district. The police status report revealed that she had voluntarily eloped with a teacher, Murugesan, who had converted to Islam and later changed his name to Mohammed.
Court's Observations
The judges noted that neither case contained allegations of unlawful confinement or prima facie evidence of illegal detention, both of which are prerequisites for invoking habeas corpus jurisdiction.
The Bench was blunt:
"Habeas Corpus is a speedy remedy to be invoked exclusively in cases of illegal detention. A person missing on their own volition does not fall under this category."
The court also cited earlier rulings, including the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s observation that unlawful detention is the sine qua non (essential condition) for habeas corpus, and its own 2018 decision in Kalaiarasi vs. State which cautioned against the trend of converting "man/woman missing" complaints into constitutional writs.
Significantly, the judges took note of a disturbing pattern: despite guidelines from the Director General of Police for handling missing cases, police often filed "undetected" closure reports without exhausting available procedures. The court reminded the police of standing instructions, including maintaining statewide databases, issuing wireless alerts, and matching unidentified bodies with missing person reports.
Decision
Concluding that both petitions were not maintainable, the High Court refused to issue writs of habeas corpus. Instead, it directed the concerned investigating officers to continue their probe into the missing persons cases, under the monitoring of Assistant Commissioners of Police.
While disposing of the petitions, the Bench also urged the police to strictly adhere to established guidelines and avoid perfunctory investigations.
The judgment closed with a reminder that habeas corpus should not be diluted into a catch-all remedy for all missing person cases.
