- Maghavatpriya HG, a Student at SASTRA Deemed to be University
Abstract
Arrest lies at the heart of criminal justice systems the world over. In India, arrest occupies a prime position in both constitutional and procedural law. Arrest powers in India are mainly governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, currently administered by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and are protected by Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution, which protect the individuals’ rights to life, personal liberty, and freedom from arbitrary detention. Grounds for arrest essentially empower the law enforcement agencies to detain a person on the principle of having committed any cognizable offence. These powers are strongly confined and fall to be exercised within the limits of the law and the constitutional concerns. In this regard, judicial pronouncements have played a pivotal role in defining the scope and application of arrest laws. A landmark pronouncement in this regard is the 2024 Supreme Court judgement of Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi). This case firmly establishes the need for the grounds of arrest to be in writing for cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The significant case highlights the features of the grounds of arrest vis-à-vis the reasons of arrest, and the procedural irregularities during the remanding process. It critically examines how Prabir Purkayastha case aligns with and challenges existing norms surrounding arbitrary arrest, especially in the context of personal liberty and fundamental rights.
Introduction
In a democratic society, the right to personal liberty is absolute. Arrest and detention are very powerful instruments of state authority, and should be exercised with due care and transparency whilst rendering them accountable for arbitrary and unlawful detention. The Indian legal framework provides for many safeguards to seek proper justification for arrests. In addition to this, Article 22 of the Indian Constitution prescribes that the arrested person be informed of the reasons for his or her arrest. According to the provision, a person arrested must be informed of the reasons for which he is arrested and he or she has a right to consult a legal practitioner, and be produced before a magistrate without delay from the time of the arrest. These protections ensure that the state authorities do not abuse their power and uphold the interests of justice and fairness in the criminal justice system. Clear and transparent procedures are especially required in instances of preventive detention or arrests done under certain special act laws, such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), which gives the state greater authority in how it conducts detentions without necessitating any immediate judicial scrutiny. In this context, Article 22 becomes even more relevant as one of the important guardians against possible misuse of these extraordinary powers. The recent judgement in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) serves as a pivotal reaffirmation of these constitutional principles, emphasizing the requirement for adherence to procedural due process in all arrests and detentions.
Legal Significance of Communicating the Grounds of Arrest
The legal significance of communicating the “grounds of arrest” in writing, as required by Article 22 of the Indian Constitution, is substantial. It prevents arbitrary detention and ensures transparency in the procedure of law while upholding the fundamental right to personal liberty. This safeguard protects the individuals against unlawful detention as it mandates the authorities to inform the arrested person of the reasons for his or her arrest. The communication of the grounds of arrest plays a critical role in ensuring accountability and protection against abuse of power and upholds the right to a fair trial. Article 22 of the Constitution stipulates that no person arrested may be denied the right to be informed of the reasons for his arrest as soon as possible and to consult with his preferred legal practitioner. This right serves as a foundation to the principles of justice and the rule of law in India. The communication of grounds of arrest includes written communication by the police or the concerned authority to the arrested individual which ensures that the arrested individual is aware of the reasons for their detention and can challenge the detention if necessary. This communication must occur at the time of arrest or immediately after the arrest. The knowledge of the grounds allows the detained individual or their legal representative to challenge the arrest and detention, in case that person is held unlawfully.
In the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court laid down the procedural measures surrounding arrest and detention, including the need for clear communication of the grounds of arrest. Though the case primarily focused on broader concerns like custodial rights, it held that an arrested individual must be informed of the reasons for his or her arrest, as it is a fundamental protection against illegal detention. The Court held that failure to make such communication constitutes a violation of Article 22 which is a basic right. In the judgement of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994), the Supreme Court further highlighted that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest. The Court ruled that arresting officers must provide the accused with written notice of the reasons for their arrest, emphasizing that failure to convey these reasons would violate the accused’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The decision reaffirmed the notion that arrest should not be used as a means of harassment or intimidation. In the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court decided that written grounds for arrest must be provided to the accused in order to maintain fairness and help them understand the case. The most recent significant judgement in this context is Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), which reaffirmed the need for compliance with the safeguards under Article 22. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the authorities failed to properly communicate the grounds for the detention of the accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Court emphasised the right to be informed of the reasons for one’s arrest is not a mere procedural formality but a crucial fundamental right. The case highlighted the significance of this safeguard in preventing arbitrary detentions, especially in circumstances involving preventive detention or special laws such as the UAPA.
The Prabir Purkayastha Case: A Reaffirmation of Rights Under the UAPA
Facts of the Case
This matter deals with the arrest of Prabir Purkayastha, who works as the Director of PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd. It was the Delhi Police who executed searches at his home and office premises. These searches were related to the investigation of a First Information Report (FIR) registered for several offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code. Various materials including document copies and electronic gadgets were taken by the police during the search operation. He was subsequently arrested on 3rd October, 2023 and presented before an Additional Sessions Judge on the following date. Upon being produced before the Judge, he was ordered to be in police custody for seven days. He opposed the arrest stating that the reasons for the arrest were not stated in writing as mandated under Article 22 of the Constitution. He further claimed that the remand proceedings were conducted in breach of his legal rights because his attorney was neither notified nor permitted to be present during the proceedings. On October 13, 2023, the Delhi High Court rejected his challenge, which was the reason for the application to the Supreme Court.
Questions raised before the Supreme Court
- Is it mandatory for a person arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to be informed of the grounds for their arrest in writing?
- Was the Appellant’s remand to police custody valid, considering the procedural irregularities during the remand process?
Decision
The Court concluded that the Appellant’s arrest and remand were unlawful, mainly due to the failure in providing written grounds for arrest and significant procedural irregularities during the remand process. The decision was focused on the fundamental right to personal liberty, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and the procedural measures laid down in Article 22.
Observations made by the Supreme Court
Mandate to Communicate in Writing the Grounds of Arrest
The Court ruled that Article 22(1) mandates that the reasons for arrest must be stated and conveyed in writing. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Pankaj Bansal v. UOI (2023), which stated that even persons arrested under special laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, are entitled to grounds of arrest communicated in writing. It held the same principle with the UAPA which is also a special law under which individuals can be arrested and detained. The Court dismissed the submission made by the State that in cases of preventive detention controlled by Article 22(5) there is no provision which requires that the reasons for such detention should be given in writing. Article 22(5) permits preventive detention but provides that it can be exercised only for a short time, and in any case the reasons for such detention have to be given to the person detained, although in a different context. The Court stressed that this did not relieve the police from the obligation of communicating the grounds of arrest in a written form under Article 22(1) because arrest and detention are two separate stages.
Distinction Between ‘Reasons’ and ‘Grounds’ of Arrest
A key aspect of the judgement is the Supreme Court’s differentiation between ‘reasons’ and ‘grounds’ for arrest, a distinction that had not been clearly expressed in previous cases. The Court observed that ‘reasons’ for arrest could be generic and applicable to all arrested individuals, such as “to investigate the offence” or “to prevent the commission of further offences”. These reasons which are necessary for the initial act of arrest, do not suffice for the constitutional protection of an arrested person’s rights. On the other hand, ‘grounds’ of arrest refer to the specific facts and information that justify the arrest of the individual in a particular case. These include the detailed evidence or information possessed by the investigating officer that establishes a link between the accused and the alleged offence. The ‘grounds’ are more than mere formalities as they provide the basis for the arrest and are necessary for ensuring transparency, fairness, and accountability in the exercise of state power. By failing to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, the authorities violated the Appellant’s constitutional rights, undermining the safeguards against arbitrary detention.
Procedural Irregularities in Remand
Alongside the absence of any written justification for the arrest, the Supreme Court uncovered serious flaws in the remand procedure as well. The Appellant’s lawyer was not notified, nor was he present during remand proceedings. Although the Appellant had clearly notified the police of his preferred attorney, the police brought another attorney for him during the remand hearing. This violated the basic right to legal representation. In addition, the Court observed that the Appellant’s attorney received a copy of the FIR only after the remand order was made. This slow provision of essential case materials prevented the Appellant from comprehending the charges against him and making appropriate preparations for his defence. In the course of delivering its judgement the Supreme Court made some remarks concerning the issue of obtaining legal representation for arrested persons on remand and the necessity of providing those persons with information on the grounds for their arrest and detention at all levels of the process. The inability to follow these procedural safeguards rendered the remand procedure unlawful.
Conclusion
The requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing is a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary detention and an essential feature of a fair justice system. The judgement in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) reaffirms constitutional protections against arbitrary arrest and detention, emphasising the requirement under Article 22 that the grounds for arrest be communicated in writing. This safeguard is a substantive right which ensures individuals are informed of the justification for their detention and can challenge it. The distinctions made between ‘reasons’ and ‘grounds’ for arrest will help clarify the difference in matters of procedural law. It also puts more emphasis on the need and importance of observing safeguards of this nature in challenges to remand, such as the right to legal representation and access to case materials, in order to strike a balance between national security and personal rights.
FAQ
- What is the significance of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing under Indian law?
The communication of the grounds of arrest in writing is a fundamental constitutional safeguard under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution. It ensures that individuals are informed of the reasons for their detention, protecting them from arbitrary or unlawful arrest. This transparency allows the detained individual to challenge the arrest and seek judicial review, reinforcing their right to personal liberty and preventing abuse of state power.
- How does the Supreme Court’s decision in the Prabir Purkayastha case impact the arrests under the UAPA?
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that individuals arrested under the UAPA must be informed of the specific grounds for their arrest in writing. The Court clarified the distinction between ‘reasons’ and ‘grounds’ for arrest, emphasising that only providing generic reasons is insufficient. This decision reinforces procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary detention and ensures that even under special laws like the UAPA, constitutional protections are upheld.
- What procedural irregularities were identified in the Prabir Purkayastha case, and how did they affect the legality of the arrest?
The Supreme Court identified significant procedural irregularities, including the failure to provide written grounds for arrest and the denial of legal representation during the remand process. These violations of the appellant’s constitutional rights, including the right to consult a legal practitioner and to be informed of the grounds for arrest, led the Court to declare the arrest and remand invalid.
- In the Prabir Purkayastha case, what distinguishes “reasons” from “grounds” for arrest?
The Supreme Court distinguished between ‘reasons’ (generic justifications for arrest) and ‘grounds’ (specific facts or evidence justifying the arrest of an individual). While ‘reasons’ may relate to broader objectives like investigating a crime, ‘grounds’ are concrete details that link the individual to the alleged offence. The Court emphasised that only the ‘grounds’ for arrest need to be communicated in writing, ensuring a fair and transparent process.
Sources
- Constitution of India.
- https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/prabir-purkayastha-v-state-nct-of-delhi-2024-insc-414-grounds-of-arrest-in-writing-fundamental-right-1535608?infinitescroll=1
- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/05/15/supreme-court-sets-aside-arrest-remand-newsclick-chief-editor-prabir-purkayastha-uapa-case/
- https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/parbir-purkayastha-judgement-not-applicable-retrospectively
- https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/enhanced-protections-against-unlawful-arrest:-prabir-purkayastha-v.-state-(nct-of-delhi)/view
- https://www.thequint.com/opinion/grounds-of-arrest-supreme-court-curious-case-of-prabir-purkayastha