DEVI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issue involved in all the above Petitions is one and the same, they are taken up for disposal by a common order. In all these cases, the detenus have been branded as "Goondas" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under various orders of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. The detenus came to adverse notice in the following cases:

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the respective petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in H.C.P. Nos. 2377 and 2475 of 2013 would contend that as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as soon as the arrest is made, it must be communicated to the relatives of the person arrested. If such constitutional requirement is not satisfied, then the detention order clamped on the detenu is liable to be vitiated on the ground of violation of Article 22(1). Pointing to Page No. 51 of the booklet in H.C.P. No. 2377 of 2013, learned counsel vehemently contended that communication in respect of arrest of the detenu was given only to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and therefore it will not serve the purpose for which the arrest communication is to be made. He would also contend that as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of India and Another, 1982 AIR(SC) 710 there must be a communication to the relatives of the person arrested to enable them to take steps to take the arrested person on bail and if it is communicated to the prison authorities, the entire object will be defeated and the constitutional mandate will not be achieved.