The Supreme Court on Monday underscored the fundamental duty of the State and investigating agencies to inform detainees of the grounds for their arrest, referring to it as an “inviolable norm”.
Also Read: SC declines to consider immediate release for Balwant Rajoana
A bench, comprising justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan, highlighted this principle while criticising the Maharashtra government for challenging a judicial order that quashed an arrest on the grounds that the authorities had failed to communicate the grounds for detention to the individual involved.
Also Read: Without green spaces, children may turn to video games alone: Supreme Court
The bench warned that such fundamental rights under Article 22(1) cannot be disregarded, reiterating that conveying the grounds of arrest is an imperative rule in India’s judicial process. Article 22(1) mandates that detainees must be informed promptly of the grounds of their arrest.
Also Read: SC seeks responses of Delhi govt, police over flouting of firecracker ban
Referring to prior Supreme Court rulings in the Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha cases, the bench pointed out that states and investigating agencies were bound by these judgments that safeguard the right of individuals to be informed of the reasons for their detention. The two judgments held that failing to provide written grounds for detention constituted a clear violation of an individual’s right to liberty and emphasised that there is no exception to this rule.
The present proceedings arose out of an order by the Bombay high court in August, quashing the arrest of Manulla Kanchwala, a director in Supreme Construction and Developers, which has been accused of duping homebuyers and siphoning off funds. The high court had underscored that Kanchwala was not supplied the grounds for his arrest in writing.
“The arrest in the present case is a clear breach of our judgments,” noted the bench, adding: “There cannot be any exception. We have to be uniform in our approach.”
When Maharashtra’s counsel Aaditya A Pande pleaded for a short adjournment, the bench berated the state’s decision to pursue an appeal. And when Pande requested a weeklong adjournment, citing the Diwali holidays and his inability to engage senior counsel, the bench warned that the state might face a hefty penalty.
“We will adjourn, but the adjournment will come at the expense of cost,” said the bench, emphasising that the state wanted might face an exemplary fine. The bench instructed the counsel to confer with Maharashtra’s home secretary regarding the potential penalty, noting: “The adjournment will come at the expense of a cost commensurate with senior counsel.”
Faced with this warning, Maharashtra’s counsel decided to withdraw the appeal. The bench accepted the withdrawal, effectively ending the state’s attempt to challenge the high court order.
The proceedings serve as a crucial reminder to the investigating agencies that adherence to Article 22(1) is non-negotiable since failure to communicate arrest grounds is not only a legal breach but an affront to democratic principles.
Through a series of recent judgments, including those in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India and others (2023), V Senthil Balaji vs State and others (2024) and Prabir Purkayastha Vs State (2024), the Supreme Court has reflected its commitment to protecting personal liberty and ensuring that law-enforcement agencies adhere to due process and fairness in line with Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which protects people’s right to know why they are being detained. These judgments obligate the investigating agencies to provide written grounds of arrest to the accused, besides mandating courts to immediately release an arrested person if there are procedural or substantive violations.
Emphasising the stringent safeguards prescribed by the Constitution and the legislature to prevent abuse and unauthorised use of the power to arrest, the top court highlighted the importance of judicial scrutiny in such matters for protecting personal liberty and ensuring that law enforcement agencies adhere to due process and fairness. Through these judgments, the Supreme Court has consistently maintained that the requirement of communicating arrest grounds is a critical constitutional safeguard and must be uniformly applied to ensure transparency and fairness. The apex court’s position assumes more significance for arrest procedures, particularly under stringent laws such as UAPA and PMLA, which grant extensive powers to law enforcement agencies, often raising questions about the balance between national security, financial integrity and individual rights.