K.T. Sankaran, J.

The question which arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether a person who has been detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA') is entitled to be informed that he has a right to make a representation to the Government as well as to the Advisory Board against the detention or whether it is sufficient that he is informed that he has got a right to make a representation either to the Government or to the Advisory Board.

2. Dini Babu, the son of the petitioner, was detained under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA as per Ext.P1 order of detention dated 22.8.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Dini Babu was arrested on 27.8.2015. The order of detention was confirmed on 28.10.2015.

3. In Ext.P2 grounds of detention it is stated as follows:

VERNACULAR MATTER

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenu submitted a representation before the Advisory Board and he did not make a representation to the Government as he was misled by the statement in Ext.P2 that he could only elect either of the authorities for the purpose of making a representation. It is submitted that the mandatory requirement of Section 7 of the KAAPA was violated and, therefore, the detenu is liable to be set at liberty forthwith. The learned counsel submitted that the dual right of the detenu to make a representation to the Advisory Board as well as to the Government was denied by the aforesaid statement in the grounds of detention. The learned counsel submitted that even in the separate communication (Ext.R3(c)) to the detenu given at the time of arrest indicates that the detenu would have the right to make a representation either to the Additional Chief Secretary or to the Chairman of the Advisory Board.

4. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that in Ext.P2 as well as in Ext.R3(c), the idea communicated to the detenu is clear. He submitted that, at any rate, neither Ext.P2 nor Ext.R3(c) would give any indication that once the detenu makes a representation to either of the authorities, his right to make a representation to the other authority is taken away.

5. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India provides that when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. Section 7 (2) of the KAAPA reads as follows:

"7. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed.-- (1)

(2) The grounds of detention, specifying the instances of offences, with copies of relevant documents, as far as practicable, on the basis of which he is considered as a "known goonda" or 'known rowdy" and giving such materials-relating to his activities on the basis of which his detention has been found necessary, shall be furnished to him as soon as possible, nevertheless, in any case, within five days of detention and he shall also be informed in writing, under acknowledgment, of his right to represent to the Government and before the Advisory Board against his detention:

Provided that nothing in this section shall require any authority to disclose to the detained person any fact, the disclosure of which will reveal the identity of any confidential source or the disclosure of which will reveal the identity of any confidential source or the disclosure of which will be against the interests of internal security or national security."

6. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and others ((1995) 4 SCC 51), relied on the decision in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya (AIR 1951 SC 157) and held that Article 22(5) has the same force and sanctity as any other provision relating to fundamental rights. It was not