ORDER : Dr. G. Jayachandran, K. Murali Shankar, C. Kumarappan, JJ. [PRAYER IN H.C.P.(MD)No.1121 of 2022: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.109 of 2022 dated 03.06.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's son i.e., Ladan @ Binladan, aged about 19 years, S/o. Raja @ Nagor Hanifa, now detainined at the Central Prison Palayamkottai, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. Prayer in HCP(MD) No. 980/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to detention order R2 made in his proceedings in P.D.No.56/2022 dt.27.5.2022 in detaining the detenu under sec.2(f) TN Act 14/1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the detenu namely Saminathan, S/o. Mani, age 30 years who is detained at Central Prison, Trichy. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1166/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased H2-GO To detention order of the R2 in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.48/2022 dt 04/07/2022 and quash same and direct respondents to produce the body or person of detenu name Vasanthakumar @ Karuvayan S/o. Nallathambi aged 23, now detained as Goonda at madurai Central Prison before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty forthwith. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1167/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased H2-Go. Detention order of the R2 in BCDFGISSSV.No.47/2022 dt. 4.7.22 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Sasikumar S/o. Jeyakumar age 26 yrs now detained as "Goonda" at Madurai Central Prison before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty forthwith. Detention order of the R2 in BCDFGISSSV.No.47/2022 dt. 4.7.22 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Sasikumar S/o. Jeyakumar age 26 yrs now detained as "Goonda" at Madurai Central Prison before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty forthwith. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1202/ 2022 : Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to detention Order made in P.D.No.60/2022 dt.28.5.2022 U/s.2(f) of TN Act 14/1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the detenu namely, Batcha @ Rajaselvam, S/o. Rajappa, aged 29 years, detained at Central Prison, Trichy. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1218/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased H2-DO to detention order No.63/2022 dt 30/06/2022 on file of R2 herein and quash same and direct respondents to produce the detenu ie, Palanichamy, aged 57, S/o. Mayandi Thevar, now detained at Central Prison, Madurai before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty forthwith. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1223/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased H2-GO. To the D.O. passed by the R2 in D.O. H.S.(M) Confdl.No.125/2022, Dt. 28.06.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue Karuppasamy alias Ottai S/o. Muthu, male aged 21 years who is detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1227/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased H2-GO to call for the records in P.D.No.57/2022 dt.27/05/22 and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the detenu Sugumaran aged 23, S/o. Athinarayanan, who has been termed as Goonda now confined in Central Prison, Trichy before this Hon'ble Court and set the detenu at liberty. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1265/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased H2-GO.To detention order passed by R2 made in proceedings in C.No.95/Detention/CPO/TC/2022 dt.21/7/2022 in detaining the detenu u/s.2(f)of TN Act 14 of 1982 as Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Vettriselvam, S/o. Karuppaiya, Male, aged about 27 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1274/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased H2-DO. To the D.O. passed in P.D.No. 43/2022, Dt. 01.07.2022 by the R2 and set aside the same and consequently directing the respondents ot produce the detenue Rajeswaran S/o. Mathiyas aged about 26 years before this Hon'ble Court who is confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District and set him at liberty. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1300/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased H2-GO. To the D.O. of the R2 in D.O. No. 56/2022, Dt. 04.07.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Vijay Vellaisamy S/o. Venmudiraja, aged about 24 years, now detained as "Goonda" at Madurai Central Prison before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty forthwith. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1304/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to Detention Order of the R2 in Detention Order n o.66/2022 dt.23.7.2022 and Quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Nagaraj, S/o. Alagumalai, aged about 42 years now confining as Goonda at Madurai Central Prison, before this Honourable Court. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1321/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to Detention R2 made in Detention Order in P.D.No.54/2022,dt.27.5.2022 in detaining the detenue U/s.2(f) of TN Act 14/1982,Goonda and quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the detenue namely Kodi@Kodiyarasan, S/o. Sami Ayya, age 22 years who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1322/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to Detention made in P.D.No.61/2022 dt.28.5.2022 on the file of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, the 2nd Respondent herein branding the detenue by name Viswa, S/o. Vijayan, aged about 18 years as Goonda, who is now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli and quasht he impugned order of detention and set him at liberty by producing him before this Hon'ble Court. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1334/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent made in his proceedings in Detention order in P.D No. 55/2022 dated 27.05.2022 in detaining the detenue under sec. 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the Deenue namely Kannan, S/o. Ambalraj, Male, aged about 31 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1380/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to the D.O. in No. 60/BCDFGISSSV/2022, Dt.26.08.2022 on the file for the R2 and Quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son namely Fayazkhan S/o. Sabeer Ahmedkhan aged about 19 years now confined at Central Prison, Madurai. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1465/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to call for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in H.S (M) Confdl No. 122/2022 dated 28.06.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely Sudalaimani, aged about 48 years, S/o. Muthu Nadar, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1485/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to call for the records relating to the impugned Detention Order passed by the 2nd respondent in H.S (M) Confdl No. 130/2022 dated 13.07.2022 quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue namely Thangaraj Son of Mohan, Age 32 yrs now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai in Tirunelveli. Prayer in HCP(MD) No.1926/ 2022 : Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased H2-Go.Detention order passed by the R2 in detention order H.S(M).Confdl.No.124/2022 dt. 28.06.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue Chinnathambi@Lamba S/o. Annadurai, M age 26 yrs who is detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. PRAYER IN CRL.M.P.(MD)NO.13660 OF 2023 IN H.C.P.(MD)NO.1121 OF 2022: To grant a further period of six months time to comply with the directions issued by this Honble High Court in (Paragraph vide 112(e) and (f)) its order dt.30.6.2023 in HCP(MD).No.1121 of 2022 Batch.] The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Mr. Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, vide order dated 30.06.2023, considering certain crucial question of constitutional issue raised in the batch of Habeas Corpus Petitions, formulated the following issues for being considered by a Larger Bench, since there was conflicting views between the co-ordinate Benches, consisting of two Judges. 2. The issues referred for consideration by the Larger Bench are, (1) Whether non-intimation of arrest in the ground case would be a fatal to the subsequent detention order passed under Act 14 of 1982? (2) Whether the non-supply of entire materials or documents pertaining to the similar case that has been referred by the detaining authority in the detention order would also be a fatal to the detention order? 3. For easy reference and understanding, the Division Bench has listed out the judgments for and against the issues. The Division Bench has also taken all pains to trace the legislative history of preventive detention and how the terms ''relied upon documents'' and ''referred documents'' got into vogue in cases of preventive detention orders. 4. 3. For easy reference and understanding, the Division Bench has listed out the judgments for and against the issues. The Division Bench has also taken all pains to trace the legislative history of preventive detention and how the terms ''relied upon documents'' and ''referred documents'' got into vogue in cases of preventive detention orders. 4. The above two issues framed are intrinsically connected with the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and the fair opportunity to the detenu to challenge the detention order. Therefore, in a broad sense, it is the right of individual protecting his personal liberty versus the national interest and public peace sought to be attained by enforcing preventive detention following due process of law. 5. Issue No.1: - Whether non-intimation of arrest in the ground case would be a fatal to the subsequent detention order passed under Act 14 of 1982? At the outset, it is made clear that the ground case relates to an offence already committed by a person. Whereas, the detention order is to prevent a person from committing any offence, which may cause prejudice to the maintenance of public peace. While the first one is punitive in nature, the second one is preventive in nature. Indian Constitution, which speaks about personal liberty while considering the right of a person, who is detained either preventively or punitively under due process of law, had enumerated guidelines, which need to be followed to ensure the fundamental right of the person is not violated. In this regard, it is worth referring Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, which read as under:- ''20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.- (1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.- No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 22. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.- No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 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. (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).'' 6. By and large, the Courts have interpreted these Articles to the effect that a person, who is arrested for any alleged commission of crime, cannot be kept in Police custody beyond 24 hours from the time of his arrest. The said arrestee must be produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate and should be sent to judicial custody, if necessary or must be let out on bail after obtaining bond or surety, as it deem fit by the Judicial Magistrate. In case, the Police need custody of the accused for longer period to interrogate, it can only on permission of the Court and not otherwise. 7. The preventive detention is in anticipation of indulging in crime and it is preventive in nature. Contrarily, the detenu need not be produced before the Judicial Magistrate, but on serving the detention order, he shall be taken into custody and sent to the prison. It is an administrative order empowering the Executive Magistrate to curtail liberty of a person, whom he believes that his presence outside may indulge in activities, which may cause prejudice to the maintenance of public peace. It is an administrative order empowering the Executive Magistrate to curtail liberty of a person, whom he believes that his presence outside may indulge in activities, which may cause prejudice to the maintenance of public peace. In the light of this obvious difference between an arrest under a regular law and detention under the preventive Statutes, if one examines Article 22 of the Indian Constitution, it will be very clear that the framers of the Constitution had prescribed two different procedures, which has to be mandatorily followed by the authorities whether it is judicial authority or executive authority. 8. In case of arrest for any crime committed, pending investigation and trial, law permits detention of the suspected accused. As already stated, it commences with production of the arrested accused before the Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours, followed by remanding him to judicial custody for the period not more than 15 days, time to time extending the remand till he is let out on bail, and completion of investigation within the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. or any other provision of law, which prescribes time for completion of investigation by the respective Investigating Agencies. Whereas, in the case of preventive detention, whether enacted either by the Central Government or by the State Government, the Act mandates that the detention must be either based on recommendation of the sponsoring authority or the detaining authority himself on his own motion. He can detain a person, provided, he arrives at a subjective satisfaction that the detention of the said person is necessary to prevent any threat to the maintenance of public peace. 9. The judgments so far delivered, by and large endorse the view that Article 22 of the Constitution of India gives protection to the personal liberty of a person both against arrest and detention subject to exceptions, which are guided by the Statutes. In either case, whether it is arrest for a crime alleged to have been committed or preventive detention, the person, who is taken into custody, has a fundamental right, to be informed about his arrest and reason for arrest. After D.K. Basu's case [D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal ( 1997 (1) SCC 416 )], close relatives or friends should also be intimated in writing about the arrest. 10. After D.K. Basu's case [D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal ( 1997 (1) SCC 416 )], close relatives or friends should also be intimated in writing about the arrest. 10. While clause (1) of Article 22 specifically mandates that no person shall be arrested and detained in custody without being informed, Article 22(2) of the Constitution confers the right on the person arrested and detained in custody to be produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours excluding the time taken for journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the Magistrate. Such protection is not provided for a person, who is detained preventively. However, clause (3) of Article 22 of the Constitution deals with the rights conferred to persons, who are detained under law providing for preventive detention. 11. Clause (3) of Article 22 of the Constitution commence with an exclusion expression stating that nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply to any person, who is arrested or detained under any law, providing for preventive detention. However, there is a rider to this clause by way of clause (4), which provides the procedure to be followed by the detaining authority and the Advisory Board in case of any detention order passed under the provisions of detention law. A composite reading of Article 22 of the Constitution as a whole, we can conclude safely that it carry a waterline mark between clauses (1) and (2) on the one side and clauses (4) and (5) on the other side. It is also valuable to note that clause (6) of Article 22 of the Constitution also empowers the authority to withhold disclosure of certain facts, which in the opinion of the authority, considered to be against the public interest. However, this is only in respect of disclosure of fact, but not in respect of communicating the grounds on which the detention order has been made. This right of a detenu is totally taken care in clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, which reads as below:- ''22. However, this is only in respect of disclosure of fact, but not in respect of communicating the grounds on which the detention order has been made. This right of a detenu is totally taken care in clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, which reads as below:- ''22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.- (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.'' 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. The detaining authority, who is in the field and have direct conduct with the public is responsible for maintaining public peace. 14. The detaining authority, who is in the field and have direct conduct with the public is responsible for maintaining public peace. He is the appropriate authority to decide whether the presence of the person outside the prison will enable him to indulge in any activities, which will cause threat to the maintenance of public peace or not. His state of mind based on the materials available with him cannot be substituted by other persons, who are neither responsible to maintain public peace nor have the power to oversee the action of the detaining authority. 15. The High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while exercising their constitutional power conferred under Articles 226 and 227 or 32 of the Constitution respectively, expected to conduct a judicial review of the executive order namely, the detention order. If the order suffers any infirmity and infraction of the Constitution, Courts have never hesitated to interfere. 16. The Courts have said that the detenu must be made known about the ground case, which has prompted the detaining authority to pass detention order. Mere mentioning of ground case, may not be sufficient, there must be gist of the ground case, which will help the detenu to sufficiently understand what prompted the detaining authority to take him into preventive detention. In this context, the ground case and furnishing of details about the ground case in the detention order becomes very relevant. 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. 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. 19. Much reliance is made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011 (5) SCC 244 , and Ameena Begum vs. State of Telegana and others reported in 2023 (9) SCC 587 . 20. Mr. N. Pragalathan, learned counsel referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K. Roy vs. Union of India and others reported in 1982 (1) SCC 271 argued in extenso that intimation to the relatives and friends about the arrest and detention is a pre-requisite when personal liberty of a person sought to be deprived. It has to be considered as an incurable defect, which vitiate all further action taken by the State against the detenu. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again emphasized that broad and expansive interpretation to the provision of law has to be applied or else the liberty of the individual will be at stake. Therefore, any detention order relied for invoking the Act 14 of 1982, the detaining authority should also ensure that the accused while taking into judicial custody in the ground case had the advantage of being informed to his family members or relatives or friends about his detention. 21. The learned counsels in support of this argument, as an illustration, submitted that there may be case where a person will be first secured by the Police suspecting of any offence and soon thereafter, he will also be detained under the Act 14 of 1982. 21. The learned counsels in support of this argument, as an illustration, submitted that there may be case where a person will be first secured by the Police suspecting of any offence and soon thereafter, he will also be detained under the Act 14 of 1982. Whether he was arrested for a crime already alleged to have been committed or whether he has been taken into custody and detained in prison as a preventive measure, will not be made known to the family members to resort to legal recourse. By the time, the family members come to know about the detention under the preventive detention law after much persuasion, the liberty of the detenu could have been substantially curtailed for days together. What is been guaranteed and protected under the Constitution will be indirectly taken away, if intimation in the ground case not made known to the accused and his family members forthwith, in compliance with the dictum laid down in D.K. Basu's case [cited supra] and subsequent amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code by way of inserting Section 50-A to Cr.P.C. 22. An ancillary issue regarding intimation of arrest to the relatives through SMS, which has been frowned upon by the Division Bench of this Court in Harini vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 3704 also been relied upon to canvass the point that the detenu must be intimated about the arrest in the ground case properly and any intimation through SMS is not adequate intimation and the same will impair the legality of the detention order. 23. In a democratic Constitution, which invest personal liberty with the sanctity of fundamental right, law of preventive detention is designed to prevent and abuse of freedom, by antisocial and subversive elements, which might peril the national welfare or peace of the public at large. Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 for the legal fraternity or 'Goonda's Act' for the general public was enacted in order to ensure the maintenance of public order in the State. 24. Under the scheme of the Act, detention order can be revoked or recalled either by representation or by otherwise by the detaining authority himself within 12 days from the date of passing the detention order. 24. Under the scheme of the Act, detention order can be revoked or recalled either by representation or by otherwise by the detaining authority himself within 12 days from the date of passing the detention order. For confirmation of the detention order the records to be forwarded to the Advisory Board constituted under the Act, within a period of three weeks from the date of detention order. The Advisory Board within a period of seven weeks shall either confirm or revoke the order of detention. The State is empowered to extend the detention order subject to satisfaction up to 12 months from the date of detention. 25. The detenu is vested with the right to make representation to the detaining authority, Advisory Board and the State Government, either any of these three authorities or to all simultaneously or at different point of time, within the validity period of the order passed by the authority concerned. That apart, he has the fundamental right to approach the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking relief by filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that the detention order suffers infirmity or illegality. 26. As observed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sunita vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Government reported in 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 462, statistics reveals that High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had interfere the detention orders mostly on the grounds like, (i) Delay in consideration of the representation made by the detenu. (ii) Failure to consider all the points raised in the representation. (iii) Non-supply of relevant documents. (iv) Supply of eligible documents. (V) Non-application of mind like 'possibility of coming out on bail' etc. The Division Bench in this case, has observed that these grounds now form an integral part what can be termed as ''Goonda's Jurisprudence''. For sake of convenience, we intend to adopt the said expression wherever it is necessary. 27. For appropriate conclusion regarding the issues referred to the Larger Bench by the Division Bench of this Court, first, we must ascertain whether they are really germane to the detention order or not. In the pursuit of testing the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, as the idiom goes, ''missing the wood for tree'' the prejudice apprehended to the maintenance of public peace is like the wood (forest). The grounds evolved as Goonda's Jurisprudence are like trees. In the pursuit of testing the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, as the idiom goes, ''missing the wood for tree'' the prejudice apprehended to the maintenance of public peace is like the wood (forest). The grounds evolved as Goonda's Jurisprudence are like trees. Courts should be cautious not to miss the wood (forest) in search of trees. 28. The pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard to be considered as law supplementing the preventive detention Statutes. It is to be considered as a guiding factor for the Courts to test whether the detention order, which is impugned before it seriously suffers any infraction of the right vest with the detenu under the Constitution and Laws. In other words, the grounds developed into Goonda's Jurisprudence have to be tested on a case to case basis. They are all observations made on facts of each case by the Hon'ble Judges, who have contributed to the evolution of the Goonda's Jurisprudence. When the executive power to preventive detention grossly abused without any real element of threat to the maintenance of public peace, Courts have made those observations. Those observations will be a guiding factor to decide similar case. It should not be taken as a statute or mandatory provision to be applied universally in all cases, despite they are not part of the legislation. 29. At this juncture, we also place on record that on several occasions the Division Bench of this Court, which deal with Habeas Corpus Petition portfolio, has noticed lapses, error or gross abuse of fundamental right of individuals in the name of maintaining public peace and had issued directions to the authorities concerned to follow the guidelines enumerated in that judgments scrupulously. 30. In the said background, when considering the failure of intimating the relatives about arrest in the ground case, it may be a omission or lapse as far as the ground case is concerned. It has very less bearing on the process of decision making by the detaining authority. No doubt, it is violation of the Code and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's direction insofar as the ground case is concerned, but not for the detention order, unless the detenu in his representation could make out a prima facie case that non-intimation of his arrest in the ground case, has caused him prejudice to resort legal recourse challenging the detention order. This situation may arise in few cases and only in those cases, Courts are bound to consider how for non-intimation of arrest in the ground case has prejudiced the detenu. Therefore, the test is whether such non-intimation prejudiced him from making effective representation. 31. Hence, we answer Issue No:-1 as under:- Non-Intimation of arrest to the relatives/friends in the ground case shall not be a ground to test the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. It shall be a point for consideration to test whether the detenu was anyway deprived of making effective representation against his detention. Failure to intimate the arrest in the ground case cannot be a ipso facto reason to hold the detention order illegal. In other words, non-intimation to relatives/friend about the arrest in ground case is not fatal to the detention order. 32. Issue No:-2:- Whether the non-supply of entire materials or documents pertaining to the similar case that has been referred by the detaining authority in the detention order would also be a fatal to the detention order? Similar case - Likelihood of getting bail - non-furnishing entire documents connected with similar case:- Whether subjective satisfaction of detaining authority can be based on possibility of detenu being released on bail or/and probability of indulging in prejudicial activities been a bone of contention for quite some time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ankit Ashok Jelan reported in 2020 (16) SCC 185 had an occasion to deal with this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles as to, when the detention order can be validly passed on an accused already been in custody. The relevant portions in the said judgment read as under:- ''11. As per catena of decisions of this Court, even if a person is in judicial custody, he can be detained under the relevant provisions of the Act concerned, like the Cofeposa Act, etc. However, there must be a proper application of mind and the detaining authority must have been subjectively satisfied on considering the relevant material that there is a reason to believe that there is a real possibility of detenus being released on bail and that on being so released the detenus will in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities. However, there must be a proper application of mind and the detaining authority must have been subjectively satisfied on considering the relevant material that there is a reason to believe that there is a real possibility of detenus being released on bail and that on being so released the detenus will in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities. In the recent decision, this Court in Dimple Happy Dhakad [Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad, (2019) 20 SCC 609 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 416] had an occasion to consider the aforesaid aspect and after considering the decisions of this Court in Kamarunnissa [Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 128 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 88], [Union of India v. Paul Manickam, (2003) 8 SCC 342 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 239], [Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur, (2012) 7 SCC 181 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 956], [Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 746 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 249] and Veeramani [Veeramani v. State of T.N., (1994) 2 SCC 337 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 482], this Court observed and held (i) that the order of detention validly can be passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show whether the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was already in custody; (ii) that the detaining authority must be further satisfied that the detenu is likely to be released from custody and the nature of activities of the detenu indicate that if he is released, he is likely to indulge in such prejudicial activities and therefore, it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities; and (iii) the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail and on being released, he is likely to indulge in the same prejudicial activities with the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 12. 12. In Noor Salman Makani [Noor Salman Makani v. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 381 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 521], a submission was made regarding non-application of mind by the detaining authority with regard to the circumstance that the detenu was in jail and a mere bald statement that the possibility that the detenu was likely to be released on bail cannot be ruled out is not enough and it only shows that there was no proper application of mind. This Court did not accept the said submission and has observed that nothing more could have been said by the detaining authority in this context. It is required to be noted that in the said decision the apprehension of the detaining authority came to be true as the detenu was released on bail. This Court refused to set aside the detention order on the aforesaid ground. It appears that the detenus were waiting for the setting aside of the detention orders on the ground that they are in custody and that there is no real apprehension that the detenus are likely to be released on bail.'' 33. In the above judgment cited supra, three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court distinguished the judgment in Rekha's case [cited supra] in the light of Constitutional Bench judgment in Rameshwar Shaw vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan and another reported in AIR 1964 SC 334 and has held:- ''15. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court in Rekha [Rekha v. State of T.N., (2011) 5 SCC 244 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 596] and T.V. Sravanan [T.V. Sravanan v. State, (2006) 2 SCC 664 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 593] by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenus is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, narrated hereinabove, the aforesaid decisions shall not be of any assistance to the detenus and/or, as such, the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Even in Rekha [Rekha v. State of T.N., (2011) 5 SCC 244 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 596], the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Rameshwar Shaw [Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC 334 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 257] was not placed before the Court for consideration and therefore this Court had no occasion to consider the said decision. It is also required to be noted that even after considering the decision of this Court in Rekha [Rekha v. State of T.N., (2011) 5 SCC 244 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 596], which has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenus, in Dimple Happy Dhakad [Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad, (2019) 20 SCC 609 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 416], this Court has observed that even if a person is in judicial custody, he can be put on a preventive detention provided there must be an application of mind by the detaining authority that (i) the order of detention validly can be passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show whether the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was already in custody; (ii) that the detaining authority must be further satisfied that the detenu is likely to be released from custody and the nature of activities of the detenu indicate that if he is released, he is likely to indulge in such prejudicial activities and therefore, it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities; and (iii) the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail and on being released, he is likely to indulge in the same prejudicial activities with the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.'' 34. At the risk of repetition, it is emphasised again that the detention order should be passed based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding probable disturbance of public peace. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with. In many cases, the detaining authority refer a similar case, where the accused has obtained bail and believe, on parity, the detenu may also likely to get bail. This is a subjective belief based on the material before him. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with. In many cases, the detaining authority refer a similar case, where the accused has obtained bail and believe, on parity, the detenu may also likely to get bail. This is a subjective belief based on the material before him. Therefore, the 2nd part of reference is, whether those materials which the detaining authority relies to arrive at a subjective satisfaction, should necessarily be furnished to the detenu, and if not furnished, whether the same will vitiate the detention order as illegal. 35. In Ummu Saleema vs. B.B. Gujaral reported in 1981 (3) SCC 317 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as below:- ''5. Shri Jethmalani's submission was that the detaining authority was under an obligation to supply along with the grounds, copies of all documents to which reference was made in the grounds irrespective of whether such documents were or were not relied upon in making the order of detention. He submitted that the very fact that the documents were mentioned in the grounds established that the documents were relied upon in making the order of detention. We are unable to agree with the submission of Shri Jethmalani. True, it was observed in some cases that copies of documents to which reference was made in the grounds must be supplied to the detenu as part of the grounds (vide Shalini Soni v. Union of India [ (1980) 4 SCC 544 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 38 : AIR 1981 SC 431 ]). But these observations must be read in the context in which they were made. In Shalini Soni case [ (1980) 4 SCC 544 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 38 : AIR 1981 SC 431 ], for example, the observations were made immediately after stating that “grounds” in Article 22(5) did not mean mere factual inferences but meant factual inferences plus factual material which led to such factual inferences. In Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India [ (1980) 4 SCC 531 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 25 : AIR 1980 SC 1983 ] the Court observed: [SCC p. 540: SCC (Cri) p. 34, para 6] “It is difficult to see how the detenu can possibly make an effective representation unless he is also furnished copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention.” The stress was upon the words “relied upon”. In Khudiram Das v. State of W.B. [ (1975) 2 SCC 81 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 435 : 1975 2 SCR 832 , 848, 849] the constitutional requirement of Article 22(5) was stated as insistence that basic facts and particulars which influenced the detaining authority in arriving at the requisite satisfaction leading to the making of the order of detention must be communicated to the detenu so that the detenu may have an opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention. It is, therefore, clear that every failure to furnish copy of a document to which reference is made in the grounds of detention is not an infringement of Article 22(5), fatal to the order of detention. It is only failure to furnish copies of such documents as were relied upon by the detaining authority, making it difficult for the detenu to make an effective representation, that amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 22(5). In our view it is unnecessary to furnish copies of documents to which casual or passing reference may be made in the course of narration of facts and which are not relied upon by the detaining authority in making the order of detention. In the case before us we are satisfied that such were the two documents, copies of which were not furnished to the detenu. We are satisfied that the documents cannot be said to be documents which were relied upon by the detaining authority in making the order of detention. Therefore, the detenu could not properly complain that he was prevented from making an effective representation. There was no violation of the right guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution.'' 36. Section 8 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, mandates the authority making the detention order to communicate the detenu the grounds on which the detention order has been passed, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention. This time bound condition is to enable the detenu to afford him the earliest opportunity of making representation against the detention order to the State. Thus, the plain reading of the Section as well as the interpretation of the provision by the Courts indicate that grounds of detention to be furnished along with the documents relied. This time bound condition is to enable the detenu to afford him the earliest opportunity of making representation against the detention order to the State. Thus, the plain reading of the Section as well as the interpretation of the provision by the Courts indicate that grounds of detention to be furnished along with the documents relied. Whether the documents connected with the similar case to be furnished under this category is the second issue for determination. 37. Likelihood of getting bail in the ground case is one among the several grounds which influence the decision making process of the detaining authority to invoke his power under Section 3 of the Act 14 of 1982. Courts have repeatedly held that similar case doesn't mean identical case. Comparison of the offence and the probability of granting bail to the offender are the factors, which required to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu may also get bail in the case. Granting bail is a judicial process which undergoes several test and consideration. Each accused in same case may not be treated alike while considering the bail application. In the same case, each accused will have its own unique facts, which will be considered by the Court while granting bail. Bail orders are always based on the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration. The detaining authority to consider whether there is any likelihood of getting bail, refer similar cases, where Courts have granted bail. The details, which are required to be furnished to the detenu are the case number, bail application number and the date of granting bail in addition to the provisions of law for which the bail granted. 38. Neither the detaining authority nor the detenu is concerned with the similar case referred in the detention order beyond arriving at subjective satisfaction whether there is any likelihood of getting bail or whether such subjective satisfaction is totally based on irrelevant material. Law do not require a juxtaposition comparison of the ground case of the detenu and the similar case referred in the detention order, to arrive at subjective satisfaction of likelihood of getting bail. 39. In many H.C.Ps., we find that, the detention order is challenged on the ground that the similar case referred in the detention order is not a similar case. 39. In many H.C.Ps., we find that, the detention order is challenged on the ground that the similar case referred in the detention order is not a similar case. They used to plead that bail granted in the similar case for different reason, which is not available to the detenu. Sometimes, there is also a pleading that the detenu had not so far moved any bail application. Therefore, referring likelihood of granting bail in the ground case tantamounts to non-application of mind. 40. Whether there is likelihood of getting bail, and whether there is possibility of indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace, if the detenu is released on bail, are the twin test for the detaining authority to examine for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. The probability of getting bail and propensity to commit crime, which may disturb public peace are intertwined. The Courts are excepted to find out whether the reasons stated in the detention order been arrived after reasonable scrutiny of the records and whether the records which are to be necessarily is furnished to the detenu so as to make effective and valid representation. 41. Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana and others [ 2023 (9) SCC 587 ] is the latest judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has taken note of all the earlier judgements including Rekha's case [cited supra], Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal [ 1975 (3) SCC 198 ] and Fagu Shaw vs. State of West Bengal [ 1974 (4) SCC 152 ] had observed as follows:- ''78. Much water has flown under the bridge since then. It is no longer the law that an administrative authority is under an obligation to give a reasoned decision only if the statute under which it is acting requires it to assign reasons. On the contrary, it is only in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication that an administrative authority is relieved of the obligation to record reasons. Further, the presumption of official acts having been validly performed cannot be pressed into service for upholding the period for which the detention would continue if the order of detention itself suffers from an illegality rendering it unsustainable. Further, the presumption of official acts having been validly performed cannot be pressed into service for upholding the period for which the detention would continue if the order of detention itself suffers from an illegality rendering it unsustainable. That apart, the reasoning of no prejudice being suffered by the detenu because a power of revocation/modification is available to the Government would not be of any consolation if such power were not exercised at all. In such a case, the prejudice would be writ large. The decision in Vijay Kumar [Vijay Kumar v. Union of India, (1988) 2 SCC 57 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 293] is, therefore, distinguishable.'' 42. The Division Bench of this Court, consisting two of us [Dr. G. Jayachandran, J. and Mr. C. Kumarappan, J.] recently in H.C.P.(MD) No.1317 of 2023, dated 19.03.2024 [R. Tamilselvi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2024 : MHC : 1353)] had the occasion to consider the plea of non-furnishing entire documents related to similar case referred in the detention order. After considering the submissions and case laws, this Court held as below:- ''10. This Court concurs the submission of the learned counsel to the extent that preventive detention is not to deprive the liberty of a suspected accused, who under law entitle to get bail, but it is to prevent him from disturbing the public peace. To arrive at the subjective satisfaction about the propensity and possibility of causing disturbance to public peace, the detaining authority is expected to look into the offence committed and the likelihood of getting bail in the said offence. Reference to similar case bail order could be of a supporting factor to arrive at the subjective satisfaction, but grant of bail in similar case cannot be a sine qua non for slapping detention order. While so, non-supply of the similar case bail order, is of very less significance to give representation effectively. The detenu de hors of bail granted to him or to co–accused or accused in similar case or his bail petition pending or even if he not contemplating to file bail petition in future, has representation has enough merit to consider the offence alleged to have been committed by him is only in the nature of disturbance to law and order, but not an act disturbing public peace same will be considered.'' 43. The judicial pronouncements regarding the preventive detention and it's testing of the detention order always been an act of balancing between the individual liberty and the right of public at large to live peacefully. 44. Article 22 of the Constitution provides protection under arrest and detention, and the right of the Parliament / Assembly to make law for preventive detention subject to parameters mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution. There cannot be an universal application of judicial pronouncements regarding furnishing of documents in all cases as mandatory. It all depends upon case to case basis. In fact, in the Constitution itself, clause (6) of Article 22 reserves the right of the authorities not to disclose facts, if he considers the disclosure will be against the public interest. 45. While discharging the act of balancing the individual right and the public interest, here again, test will be whether the documents referred or relied is necessary to make effective representation and if the documents are not provided, whether it will prejudice the interest of the detenu. Also, it is to be noted that whether the disclosure of the materials will be against the interest of public. 46. In any case, reference to a similar case for inferring likelihood of getting bail will be one of the grounds for arriving at subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority. Section 5-A of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, provides severability of grounds of detention. Even, if in any case, there is some defect in comparing the similar case or arriving at subjective satisfaction on the likelihood of getting bail, it will not vitiate the detention order. Section 5-A of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, provides severability of grounds of detention. Even, if in any case, there is some defect in comparing the similar case or arriving at subjective satisfaction on the likelihood of getting bail, it will not vitiate the detention order. Section 5-A of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, reads as below:- ''5-A. Grounds of detention severable.- Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention [whether made before or after the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers (Amendment) Act, 1986)], under Section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly:- (a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are:- (i) vague; (ii) non-existent; (iii) not relevant; (iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person; or (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever, and it is not, therefore, possible to hold that the Government or officer making such order would have been satisfied as provided in Section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention; (b) the Government or officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said section after being satisfied as provided in that section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds.'' Therefore, even if vague or non-existent or not-relevant or not connected or not proximately connected with such person or invalid grounds been stated, that can be severed with the other valid grounds to sustain the detention order. There may be some rare case, where the likelihood of getting bail alone be the sole ground for arriving at subjective satisfaction. Only in such rarest of rare case, it may be necessary to look into whether such a conclusion is really based on bail granted in a similar case and detention order is passed only to prevent the detenu from availing the liberty through process of law, and not for any other reasons. Only in such rarest of rare case, it may be necessary to look into whether such a conclusion is really based on bail granted in a similar case and detention order is passed only to prevent the detenu from availing the liberty through process of law, and not for any other reasons. If the detention order provides material regarding the propensity of the detenu to cause disturbance to the public peace, then, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority need not be interfered. 47. As a result, for the second issue whether the non-supply of entire materials or documents pertaining to similar case that has been referred by the detaining authority in the detention order, would be fatal to the detention order, the answer of this Bench is an emphatic 'No'. 48. There is no necessity or mandate to supply entire materials or documents pertaining to the similar case. Even in a worst case, if the similar case cited is not similar in any manner, it will vitiate only that ground, which could be severable with other valid grounds. Therefore, it will not be fatal to the detention order. 49. Accordingly, Issue No.1 as well as Issue No.2 are answered in negative. All the H.C.Ps. are to be listed before the concern Bench for decision based on the facts and circumstances of each individual cases in the light of the above pronouncement to the issues referred.