Successive Habeas Corpus Plea Can't Reopen Grounds Already Available But Not Raised In Earlier Petition: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a second writ of habeas corpus challenging the same preventive detention order under Article 226 of the Constitution can be maintained only when there is a change in circumstances or a new ground becomes available after the earlier petition was decided.

The Court clarified that this is not an application of res judicata or constructive res judicata, but of the principle of finality attached to the judgment in the previous habeas corpus petition.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi in a writ petition filed by Bommali Ashajyothi seeking the release of her husband, Bommali Vamsi Krishna, from preventive detention.

The Court observed:

“...after the dismissal of the writ petition for Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention, if the judgment of the High Court is not challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or any petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has not been filed, then fresh writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be maintained in the High Court only if the circumstances have changed or if a new ground becomes available after the decision of the earlier writ petition after the decision of the earlier writ petition. Otherwise, the judgment in the previous writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be final, on the principle of finality attached, though it may not be on the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata.

in T.P.Moideen Koya (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex court clearly observed that “if a fresh petition under Article 32 was permitted on the ground that certain ground has not been dealt with in the judgment, a party can file as many petitions as he likes and take one or two new points every time.” The same may also be the situation in case of the successive Habeas Corpus petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the same High Court.”

The petitioner had earlier challenged the same detention order in another writ petition, which was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench on merits.

In the present petition, the petitioner contended that the challenge was based on different grounds which had not been raised earlier.

The respondents, however, submitted that the grounds were already available when the previous petition was filed and that there were no changed circumstances.

The High Court accepted the respondents' contention and held:

“We may not be understood as applying the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata to a writ of Habeas Corpus.

What we apply is, the principle of finality attached to the judgment in the previous writ petition. That finality cannot be reopened or disturbed, except on a new ground becoming available after the previous decision or under the changed circumstances.”

The Court observed that otherwise a petitioner could omit grounds which were available at the first stage and reserve them for a subsequent habeas corpus petition if the first petition failed. Such a course, the Court said cannot be permitted.

Since the ground raised in the present petition was available at the time of the earlier decision, it could not be treated as a new ground or as arising from changed circumstances.

The Court accordingly held that the finality of the earlier judgment by a Co-ordinate Bench could not be upset on the same grounds or grounds available but not raised earlier.

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Case Title: Bommali Ashajyothi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.No.6859 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D. Purna Chandra Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents: Additional Advocate General

Click Here To Read/Download Order