The central legal point established in the judgment is the detenu's right to be informed of the arrest and to make an effective representation, as guaranteed under Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order vide Memo BCDFGISSSV No.330/2022 dated 23.09.2022 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner''s daughter namely Jancy @ Poornima, W/o.Ravi, aged 32 years [who is presently undergoing detention in Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai] before this Court and set her at liberty.)

M. Nirmal Kumar, J.

Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and brevity] has been filed by the mother of the detenu assailing ''detention order dated 23.09.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.330/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience]. To be noted, the fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and the second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by the second respondent.

2. Impugned detention order has been made under ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Immoral Traffic Offender'' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of Act 14 of 1982.

3. There is no adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.01 of 2022 on the file of Anti Vice Squad-II for alleged offences under Sections 2(2)a, 4(1), 5(1)a, 6(1) and 7(1) of the Immoral Traffic [Prevention] Act. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Ms.D.Prasanna, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John learned counsel for respondents are before us.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner predicated her campaign against the impugned detention order on one short point and that is, in the Arrest memo it is recorded that the arrest of the detenu was informed to her mother Tmt.Jagadhambal through her mobile bearing No.9940328461 by way of SMS. She further submitted that this would not be a proper communication of arrest, more so, there is no statement recorded from the said Tmt.Jagadhambal to confirm as to whether she received the arrest intimation, thereby hampered the right of the detenu to make an effective representation.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has not made any such representation now putforth before this Court. Hence, the above contention may not be considered.

7. The Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Akilandeswari Vs. State, rep. by Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai-600009, reported in 2008 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 744”, held as follows:

“5. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has made an attempt to justify by stating that the family members were intimated through telegrams, he has not placed any material to satisfy this Court as to whether any telegram was sent and the same was acknowledged either by the family members or relatives of the detenu. A right of intimation to the relatives or family members of the detenu encompasses itself the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to make a representation to the Detaining Authority or the State Government, as the case may be. In the event the arrest is not intimated, the detenu would not be in a position to make any such representation and in that context, failure on the part of the Detaining Authority would amount to deprivation of the rig