ORDER : S. VIMALA, J. 1. Thomas Jefferson, the eminent Statesman and third President of United States, who drew up the Declaration of Independence in 1776, spoke about liberty in the following terms: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That, to secure these rights, government are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them, shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness......Freedom of Religion, freedom of the Press and freedom of person under the protection of the Habeas Corpus; these are the principles that guided our steps through an age of revolution and Reformation. 2. The scope of the term 'liberty' was explained in the case of Allgeyr vs. Louisiana, (1897) 165 US 578 at Pg.No.589 stating that “the liberty mentioned in that amendment (Fourteenth Amendment) means not only the right of the citizen to be free from physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of a citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties, to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation and for that purpose to enter into all contract, which may be proper, necessary and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purpose above mentioned.” 3. Whether this kind of liberty is available to a non citizen also is an issue raised in this petition. 4. Originally H.C.P(MD) 815 of 2016 was filed by the wife of the detenu, seeking direction to the respondents therein to produce the body of the husband and to set him at liberty. 5. The detenu was earlier involved in a case in Crime No.27 of 2014 under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act 1946 and Section 3(a) r/w 6(a) of Passport (Entry into India) Rule 1950, which resulted in conviction. 5. The detenu was earlier involved in a case in Crime No.27 of 2014 under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act 1946 and Section 3(a) r/w 6(a) of Passport (Entry into India) Rule 1950, which resulted in conviction. The detenue has undergone the imprisonment and thereafter released on 08.10.2015. Whether the detenu was to be permitted to reside with his wife and three children was the issue in the earlier Habeas Corpus Petition. After enquiry, ultimately, it was ordered that the detenu has to be transferred from the Special Camp at Trichy to the house allotted to the petitioner bearing OB-20/2 in Mandabam Refugee Settlement at Ramanathapuram by 13.07.2016. It was ordered that the movement the detenue after transfer would be curtailed in view of pending proceedings initiated to deport him to Srilanka. 6. This Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Q-Branch CID Chennai to keep surveillance over the detenu by providing round the clock security. The extent to which the liberty should be curtail or can be curtailed is the issue in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 7. Originally, the wife appeared as party-in-person and thereafter, Mr.Gandhi was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. 8. The petitioner is a Srilankan Refugee, who came to India on 05.05.2014 and they were remanded to custody for travelling without passport. Later on, they were released on 08.10.2015. The petitioner was kept under solitary confinement in Mandabam Special Camp. On account of fast unto death, a house was allotted to the petitioner in Mandabam Special Camp. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband is put under illegal detention and he has been kept under house arrest for nearly 1+ year and that had affected the economic support that was being given by the husband and children are made to starve and therefore, the petitioner's husband should be set at liberty. 10. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband is put under illegal detention and he has been kept under house arrest for nearly 1+ year and that had affected the economic support that was being given by the husband and children are made to starve and therefore, the petitioner's husband should be set at liberty. 10. The 2nd respondent has filed the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated, that a) the petitioner and her husband engaged themselves in human traffiking in Srilanka and they are guilty of collecting huge amount on the asurance of sending Srilankans to foreign countries; b) a case has been registered in Kirulapannai Police Station of Srilanka in Crime No.B2713/3/2014 in this regard; c) NCB Colombo (Interpol) has declared the petitioner and her husband as wanted suspect and has issued notices; d) only in order to evade from the clutches of law, the petitioner has come forward with this petition. 11. As per the minutes of the meeting held on 14.06.2011, in the Chambers of the Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Rehabilitation and Welfare of Non Resident, Chennai, it has been decided that all Srilankans, who came even by visa may be dealt with as per the Government of India and State Government instructions and may be directed to the concerned FRO for registration as foreigner. Any Srilankan coming to India and seeking refugee status cannot be considered after this date, i.e. 14.06.2011. 12. The petitioner and her husband came to India through illicit ferry on 05.05.2014 and hence, they could not be considered as refugees, but treated as “foreigners arrived India” without valid travel documents. 13. Both of them are reportedly LTTE operatives and active during civil War in Srilanka. The petitioner's husband was working in IT Institute run by LTTE at Kilinochchi, Srilanka from 2006 to 2008 and they were lodged in detention camp in Srilanka after the Civil War. LTTE has been declared as a terrorist organization under Section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and also as an Unlawful Association under Section 3(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for a period of five years from 14.05.2014. 14. The petitioner is a convict and a sentence of two years imprisonment has been imposed by Prathana Neethivan Court on 31.03.2015 and the Court has issued warrant against the detenu. 14. The petitioner is a convict and a sentence of two years imprisonment has been imposed by Prathana Neethivan Court on 31.03.2015 and the Court has issued warrant against the detenu. If the petitioner and her husband are allowed to move freely, it will be a great threat to the security of the Country and therefore, the Habeas Corpus Petition has to be dismissed. 15. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner and her husband are running a Parota Stall and it was forced to be closed. In the name of surveillance, even while going to hospital, they are accompanied by Policemen; the presence of Policemen with frowning facial expressions throughout the day at the doorstep of the residence amounts to interference into right to privacy and therefore, the petitioner and her husband are entitled to necessary protection at the hands of the Court. The petitioner's husband was running an educational institution (to impart IT education to the poor and needy at affordable cost during 2006 to 2008 and it is not an institution run by IT Wing of LTTE) 16. It is contended that as per the reported decision in Louis De Raedt vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1887, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the right to life under Article 21 is available to citizens non citizens alike. The surveillance imposed is an impediment for the normal movement. If the detention and shadowing is permitted, the life will become caricature and parody. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's husband may be subjected to any kind of restrictions that would not affect their privacy and that the petitioner and her husband would give an undertaking that they would obey the due process of law. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that it is open to the appropriate Government to take extradition proceedings and in that event, it is open to the Indian Government also to respond to it and the petitioner and her husband must obey and would obey all the orders and that in order to have a life with air of freedom, the restrictions have to be relaxed. 19. 19. The learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the Court should take a balanced view striking a balance between protecting the security of India and at the same time, assuring the liberty of the petitioner and her husband. Learned Amicus Curiae extensively placed arguments on the legal status of the petitioner and the protection available to them under the Law. The assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae is appreciable and this appreciation is placed on record. 20. The family provides strong roots for any man in the society. The petitioner's husband also has family consisting of wife and two children. The children are school going. The activities of the petitioner, while they were in Srilanka and while in India, need not be discussed at length and it is a subject matter to be taken note of only by the Government. The only issue to be considered is, whether the condition imposed by this Court earlier needs to be relaxed in the light of the allegations levelled that the surveillance and security continues to the extent of shadowing in the entire family life and therefore, it has to be relaxed to the extent of providing fundamental freedom and dignity for this couple to have free basic life. 21. It is stated by the wife that on one occasion when they had to go to Delhi by train, they had to spend a sum of Rs.27,000/- per Constable, who was accompanying them and this was an economic burden upon the family consisting of two children and that there are innumerable intrusion in the family of the petitioner on account of the surveillance and security ordered. 22. It is the prerogative of the State to impose appropriate condition upon the petitioner, her husband, who are claimed to be refugees / foreigners, to ensure the safety and security of the nation. But, here is the case, where originally round the clock security has been ordered by this Court and the petitioner needs modification and relaxation in the light of bitter experience allegedly suffered by them. 23. Under the status circumstances, we are of the view that the conditions imposed earlier have to be relaxed in the light of the possibility of intervention by using technology. 23. Under the status circumstances, we are of the view that the conditions imposed earlier have to be relaxed in the light of the possibility of intervention by using technology. Accordingly, the earlier order stands modified and the following conditions are imposed: (i) The petitioner's husband shall appear and sign before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Ramanathapuram twice a week, i.e., on each Monday and Friday at 10:30am and in case anyone of the day is a holiday, he shall appear before the Court on the next/previous working day; (ii) The petitioner shall provide the telephone number used by her and by her husband to the respondents and the Government is at liberty to exercise power under Section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act; (iii) The Government is also permitted to exercise all such powers of monitoring the activities of the petitioner and her husband by using technology and other means, excepting through physical surveillance. With the above observation, modification and direction, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands ordered in the above terms.