Detention communication safeguard applied: family knowledge of custody and place of detention prevented invalidation for lack of formal intimation.

The communication safeguard in A.K. Roy is directed at preventing the detenu's family from being kept unaware of the detention and from being denied access, help and assistance. On the stated facts, the detenu's household members already knew of the detention and the place of confinement through the mittimus and family visits. In that setting, the absence of a formal written intimation to relatives did not amount to breach of the constitutional protection relied upon by the High Court, and the detention order was not invalidated on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated for non-communication to the detenu's household members of the fact of detention and the place of detention, notwithstanding that the detenu was already in custody and his relatives had knowledge of his detention.

Analysis: The requirement stated in A.K. Roy was explained as serving the purpose of preventing the detenu's family from being kept in the dark and enabling access, help, and assistance. On the facts, the household members had sufficient knowledge of the detenu's detention and the place where he was lodged, including through the mittimus and visits by relatives. In that situation, the absence of a formal written intimation to the relatives did not amount to a contravention of the constitutional safeguard relied upon by the High Court.

Conclusion: The detention order was not invalidated on the ground of non-communication to the relatives, and the High Court's view was set aside.

---