Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. 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 16. 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. 1986, in the Government Hospital, Manalmelkudi; that the child namely Balamurugan, has achieved the Indian Citizenship by birth; that on 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. 2007; that this Court has granted bail in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8054/2007 on 9. 2007; that while the matter stood thus, the impugned order has been issued on 17. 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. 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. In answer to the above, it is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that a case was registered against the said Balamurugan under the aforesaid provisions of law; that it is true that bail has been granted; that actually, an order has been passed to confine him in the Refugee Camp, Chengalpattu; that it was not an order of detention; that it is only a reasonable restriction; and that there is no question of any violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Added further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that he was not an Indian national; that he has never acquired the citizenship; that during the relevant period, admittedly, his parents were Ceylon repatriates and refugees at that time. He would further submit that all the documents have been fabricated in order to show him as an Indian national, and the investigation in that regard was also done. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor in support of his contentions relied on a decision of this Court reported in 1995-2-L.W. (Crl.) 690 (Kalavathy And Others V. State Of Tamil Nadu And Others). 4. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and is of the considered opinion that the petition requires an order of dismissal. 5. Challenge is made to an order of the State dated 17. 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. 6. 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. 6. The next question that would arise for consideration is whether the alleged detenu whose freedom, according to the petitioner, was actually restrained by directing him to be confined at the Refugee Camp, Chengalpattu, is a foreigner or Indian national. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would stress that he is an Indian national. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would come with a contra contention. From the averments made in the affidavit, it could be seen that they were Srilankan national, and due to the political crisis they came over to India, and they have actually been in the Refugee Camp. As could be seen from the available materials and in particular, the birth certificate of the detenu, the son of the petitioner is shown to be a Ceylon refugee. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, he was born in June 1986, and applying the provisions of the Citizenship Act, referred to above, by birth he has acquired the citizenship of India. This contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor comes with the case to state that all the cases have been registered against him, and also a case under the provisions of the Foreigners Act has also been registered, and he has been found to be a Srilankan national, and now, all the documents relied on by the petitioner, have been completely fabricated in order to show him as an Indian national, and the investigation was also done in that aspect, and a report has also been given. That apart, according to the State, a case has also been registered against him and also against his mother in that regard. Under the stated circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the order passed by the State, does not require any disturbance, and it has got to be sustained. Accordingly, it is sustained. 7. For the reasons stated above, this habeas corpus petition requires an order of dismissal, and accordingly, it is dismissed.