N PARAMESWARI Vs. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner one Parameswari seeks a writ of habeas corpus alleging that she was a Srilankan National; that due to political crisis, she came to India by India - Srilanka passport on 15.6.1979; that she was directed to reside at Ponnagaram in Pudukottai District; that she was residing at Pandian Nagar, Karisalkulam, Madurai; that she was issued with the family card, election card, etc., that while so, she gave birth to a male child on 6.6.1986, in the Government Hospital, Manalmelkudi; that the child namely Balamurugan, has achieved the Indian Citizenship by birth; that on 2.6.2007, her son was arrested by the third respondent in connection with a criminal case registered under Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, Sec.14 of Foreigners Act, Sec.5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sec.8(C) and 20(1)(b) of NDPS Act in Crime No.1 of 2007 and remanded to judicial custody on 6.6.2007; that this Court has granted bail in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8054/2007 on 6.9.2007; that while the matter stood thus, the impugned order has been issued on 13.7.2007 to confine the detenu Balamurugan at the Refugee Camp, Chengalpattu, and the same is the subject matter of challenge.

(2.) ADVANCING his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that the son of the petitioner Balamurugan has acquired Indian Citizenship by birth; that it is true that the petitioner was of Srilankan national; that as a repatriate, she came over to India; that she has been given with ration card and election card; that the detenu was also born in India in the year 1986, and thus, he has acquired the citizenship. Learned Counsel relied on the provisions of Sec.3(A) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1985. He would submit that for the above reasons, the order passed by the State, is ultra vires and also unsustainable, and hence, it has got to be set aside.

(3.) CHALLENGE is made to an order of the State dated 13.7.2007, confining the detenu Balamurugan in the Refugee Camp at Chengalpattu. The first question that would arise for consideration is whether it is a detention order and whether it has violated the freedom that is given under the provisions of the Constitution. At the outset, the Court has to answer the same in the negative for the simple reason that the dimensions of freedom of movement available for the citizen are not the same for a foreigner. Restrictions imposed on the foreign citizens during explosive situations in the country, held, are reasonable and do not amount to arbitrary or capricious exercise of power as to violate Articles 21 or 14 of Constitution.