Proper intimation of arrest and the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India are fundamental constitutional safeguards that must be upheld in preventive detention cases.

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 pertaining to the order of detention dated on 26.08.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent in No.105/BCDFGISSSV/2022 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenue Ganesh Kumar @ Ganesh S/o.Nagaraj male aged about 30 years now confined in Central prison, Puzhal, Chennai)

M. Nirmal Kumar, J.

1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and brevity] has been filed by the father of the detenu assailing ''detention order dated 26.08.2022 bearing reference No.105/BCDFGISSSV/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 ''Goonda'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.

3. There are eight adverse cases. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.516 of 2022 on the file of T-1 Ambattur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 392, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 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. Mr.S.Senthil Kumar, 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 his campaign against the impugned detention order on one short point and that is, in the Arrest Intimation Form it is recorded that the arrest of the detenu was informed to his counsin one Tmt.Saraswathi by way of SMS. He further submitted that this would not be a proper communication of arrest, more so, no signature of the detenu''s cousin is found and further there is no material to show that mobile number found therein belongs to the detenu''s cousin, 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 right