(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the detention order passed by the second respondent in Detention Order No.08 of 2025 dated 05.03.2025 and quash the same and consequently set the detenu by name S.Boopathi Raja, son of Surulimuthu (male aged 34 years) who is confined at Central Prison, Madurai at liberty.)

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., S.Boopathi Raja, aged about 34 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by order in Detention Order No.08 of 2025 dated 05.03.2025 holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised following grounds:

                   3.1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. Immediately after the order of detention, none of the family members were informed about the detention order, and they were kept in dark regarding status of the detenu. According to the prosecution, brother of the detenu was informed about the arrest of detenu, however, no message was received whatsoever on his mobile phone.

                   3.2. The detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.02.2025 in pursuant to the registration of an F.I.R in Crime No.5 of 2025 under Sections 3, 4, 5(m), 5(n) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 351(2) of B.N.S., 2023. In fact, the F.I.R was registered on 03.02.2025 for an occurrence that allegedly took place on 11.10.2024, wherein it was alleged that the detenu misbehaved with a minor victim girl. However, the detention order came to be passed only on 05.03.2025.

                   3.3. There was an unexplained delay in passing the order of detention. Therefore, there is no live and proximate link between the date of arrest and the date of the detention order in respect of the ground case registered in Crime No.5 of 2025. Further, the detenu has been implicated in a serious offence and, even though the bail application filed by the detenu was dismissed, there is no possibility of the detenu coming out on bail subsequently. Hence, preventive detention is not at all warranted.

                   3.4. The detenu was not served with the reasons and grounds for his arrest. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the documents relied upon by the detaining authority do not contain any particulars in the column relating to the reasons and grounds for arrest. Therefore, the order of detention cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the following Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:

                   “(i) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), dated 15.05.2024 in S.L.P.Diary No.42896 of 2023.

                   (ii) Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another [2025 Live Law (SC) 169] and

                   (iii) Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharastra [2025 Live Law (SC) 1066].”

5. Per contra, the second respondent filed a counter- affidavit and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenu was involved in a sexual offence. After registration of the F.I.R, the victim girl was subjected to medical examination and her statement was recorded before the Judicial Officer. After completion of all formalities, the sponsoring authority collected all relevant documents from the concerned authorities and thereafter placed them before the detaining authority, recommending detention of the detenu under Act 14 of 1982.

6. Therefore, there was delay of 30 days in passing the detention order. The detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.02.2025 and was detained under Act 14 of 1982 on 05.03.2025. Hence, there was no unexplained delay on the part of the detaining authority in passing the detention order.

7. Though there was delay in lodging the complaint, it has no bearing on the detention order and cannot be a ground to quash the same, as delay in lodging a complaint in sexual offence cases is immaterial. The complaint was lodged after the victim girl came out of mental trauma. Further non-serving of the reasons and grounds for arrest has nothing to do with the detention order. In fact, in order to detain a person under Act 14 of 1982, arrest and remand are not prerequisite conditions for passing a detention order. Therefore, non- serving of the reasons and grounds for arrest cannot be a ground to challenge the detention order. At best, it may be a ground to challenge the order of arrest or remand, in accordance with law.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the documents referred to in the detention order cannot be construed as relied upon documents. In fact, after remand in pursuance of the registration of the F.I.R Crime No.5 of 2025, the detenu filed a bail application, which was dismissed in Crl.M.P.No. 76 of 2025 by order dated 25.02.2025 on the file of the Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Theni. Therefore, there is a possibility of granting bail to the detenu.

9. In support of his contentions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in N.Fathima @ Laila Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2024) 2 MLJ (Crl) 197].

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

11. Though several grounds were raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to quash the order of detention, he mainly relied upon that the contention that the detenu was not served with the reasons and grounds of his arrest. In support of the said contention, he relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), dated 15.05.2024 in S.L.P.Diary No.42896 of 2023, wherein it is held as follows:

                   “49. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.”

The above Judgment arises out of a declaration, declaring the arrest of the petitioner therein as illegal and the order of remand as null and void.

12. There is no quarrel with the proposition that an accused must be served with an arrest memo stating the reasons for arrest as well as the grounds of arrest. When the accused is not served with an arrest memo containing the particulars of the grounds and reasons for arrest, the arrest of the accused itself is vitiated and the consequential remand becomes illegal. However, while non-serving of the reasons and grounds for arrest vitiates the arrest, the validity of the order of detention is the issue to be decided in the present case.

13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another [2025 Live Law (SC) 169], wherein it has been held as follows:

                   “21. Therefore, we conclude:

                   a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1);

                   b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved;

                   c) When arrested accused alleges non- compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1);

                   d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non- compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1);

                   e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and

                   f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.”

14. It is relevant to extract Article 22 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows:

                   “22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.— (1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.

                   (2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.

                   (3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply—

                   (a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or

                   (b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention.

                   (4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless—

                   (a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention:

                   Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise the detention of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or

                   (b) such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by Parliament under sub- clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).

                   (5) 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.

                   (6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose.

                   (7) Parliament may by law prescribe—

                   (a) the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person may be detained for a period longer than three months under any law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub- clause (a) of clause (4);

                   (b) the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention; and

                   (c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause (4).”

15. Article 22 (1) and (2) deal with the arrest and remand, whereas Article 22 (3) (b), (4) and (5) deal with preventive detention.

16. Therefore, non-serving of the reasons and grounds for arrest are clear violation of Article 22(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the continued custody of such a person based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing of a charge-sheet and the order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Article 22 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India. But, it has nothing to do with preventive detention and not serving the copy of arrest memo that too without stating any reasons and grounds for arrest to detenu cannot vitiate the order of detention. This issue has been dealt with by the Full Bench of this Court, as relied upon by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in the case of N.Fathima @ Laila Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2024) 2 MLJ (Crl) 197], wherein it is held as follows:

                   “12. Thus, a plain reading of the Constitution, even before moving to the pronouncements of the Courts, would clearly indicate that the right of a preventive detenu to be viewed differently and to be tested with the mandates prescribed under clauses (3) to (6) of Article 22 of the Constitution. Whereas, the right of the suspected accused taken into judicial custody to be tested in the light of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution. The judicial pronouncements of this land had always been jealous over protecting the right of the individual. This could be understood from the March of Law, the judgments since from the time of A.K.Gopalan's case [A.K.Gopalan vs. State of Madras [1950 SCC 228]]. However, it is to be borne in mind that neither the law nor the judicial pronouncements had compelled the executives to compromise the public order, which gives prominence to individual liberty. All the judgments cited, had tested the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in the given facts and circumstances. All these observations made have to be confined to those cases and cannot be telescoped to other cases, which are factually different.

                   13. The litmus test for a detention order is whether there was proper application of mind to arrive at the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority, and whether the material placed before him either by the sponsoring authority or from other sources, provides adequate materials, which would give prima facie satisfaction that a preventive detention of the said person is unavoidable and imminent to maintain public peace.

                   14. .......

                   15. .......

                   16. .......

                   17. The first issue before this Court referred for authoritative pronouncement is, whether the failure to intimate the arrest of the suspected in the ground case will have any bearing in the detention order and will it render the detention order illegal.

                   18. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that after the 11 commandments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K.Basu's case [cited supra], the Union Government has thought fit to amend the Criminal Procedure Code and also the respective States had amended their Criminal Rules of Practice in exercise of the power conferred under Section 477 Cr.P.C. After introduction of Sections 41-A and 50-A in the Criminal Procedure Code, there can be no gainsay to contend that it will not apply to detention orders. Any defect in the ground case will have a direct bearing in the decision making process of the detaining authority, who is supposed to apply his mind fairly and take appropriate decision. If there is inherent defect of not intimating the arrest in the ground case, that defect, which is incurable, has to be considered as defect in the detention order also. Any detaining authority, if passes the detention order without ensuring whether the detenu or his family members or his friends informed about the arrest in the ground case, it is an apparent indication of non- application of mind. Any subjective satisfaction without applying the mind holistically, suffers inherent defect and will be fatal to the detention order.”

17. Thus, it is clear that the law of preventive detention is designed to prevent the abuse of freedom by antisocial and subversive elements which might imperil the national welfare or public peace at large. Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, known to the legal fraternity as the 'Goondas Act' was enacted in order to ensure the maintenance of public order in the State.

18. Therefore, arrest or remand is not a prerequisite condition for detaining a person under Act 14 of 1982. While challenging the order of detention, the Court has to examine whether there was proper application of mind leading to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and whether the material placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority or from other sources provide adequate material to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that a preventive detention of the said person was unavoidable and imminent to maintain public peace.

19. With the above background, while considering the failure to state the reasons and grounds for arrest, it may be an omission or lapse on the part of the sponsoring authority. However, it has very little bearing on the decision making process of the detaining authority. Though it is a clear violation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it does not vitiate the order of detention, unless, the detenu raises such a ground in the representation and establishes that non-intimation of the reasons and grounds of arrest caused serious prejudice in availing legal remedies to challenge the order of detention.

20. On perusal of the representation submitted by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu, it is revealed that the detenu did not even whisper about the grounds which are now raised before this Court. Hence, non-intimation of the grounds and reasons for arrest cannot be a ground to test the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. It cannot be an ipso facto reason to hold the detention order as illegal. It is not at all fatal to the order of the detention. Therefore, the Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are not helpful to the case on hand to quash the order of detention. Other grounds raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be countenanced for the above reasons to set aside the order of detention.

21. In view of the above, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the order of detention. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.