Court dismisses successive habeas corpus petitions under Article 226, upholding principles of res judicata and finality.

The court dismissed the successive habeas corpus petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, citing that the new grounds raised were either previously available or did not present fresh material. The principles of res judicata and the need for finality in judicial decisions were applied, leading to the dismissal of the petitions without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Permissibility of successive habeas corpus petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Grounds for challenging the orders of detention.
3. Application of the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata to habeas corpus petitions.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Permissibility of Successive Habeas Corpus Petitions
The primary issue revolves around whether successive habeas corpus petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are permissible. The court examined the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata as they apply to habeas corpus petitions. It was noted that the principles of res judicata generally do not bar successive habeas corpus petitions if they are based on fresh and new grounds that were not available or could not be raised in the earlier petition due to exceptional reasons.

Issue 2: Grounds for Challenging the Orders of Detention
The petitioners raised five new grounds to challenge the detention orders:
1. Non-response to Representations: The detaining authority and the State and Union Governments did not respond to the representations sent by the detenus, and the delay was unexplained.
2. Fresh Representations: Fresh representations requesting certain vital documents and reconsideration of the detention order were not responded to.
3. Illegible Documents: About 25 pages out of 807 supplied documents were wholly or partially illegible, depriving the detenu of the right to make an effective representation.
4. Non-availability of Assay Report: The detaining authority did not consider the Assay Report to determine the exact nature of the contraband, which could have affected the legality of the detention order.

Issue 3: Application of Res Judicata or Constructive Res Judicata
The court analyzed whether the new grounds raised in the present petitions were barred by the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata. The court found that:
- The ground of illegible documents was available to the petitioners when the earlier petitions were filed, and there was no exceptional reason why it was not urged earlier.
- The ground of non-availability of the Assay Report was also available at the time of the earlier petitions and could have been raised then.
- Subsequent representations to the detaining authority and the Central Government did not present any new grounds or fresh material that was not available earlier.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the new grounds raised in the present petitions were either already available at the time of the earlier petitions or did not constitute fresh material or new grounds. Therefore, the principles of res judicata and the need for finality in judicial decisions applied, and the petitions were dismissed. There was no merit in the petitions, and no order as to costs was made.

---