The arrest as well as detention order of News Click founder Prabir Purkayastha as declared by the Supreme Court is expected to ring changes in the criminal procedures adopted by the police all over India. In its landmark decision, the court has said that every person arrested for any offense must be given a written notice of grounds of such an arrest and it will not be sufficient to convey them orally.
A bench headed by Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta also drew a distinction between ‘reasons of arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. They stated that while the former meant general parameters on which an individual can be arrested, the latter requires police officials to state specific facts leading to apprehension of such individual so that he/she can effectively resist remand or apply for bail.
It however rejected Additional Solicitor General Suryaprakash V Raju’s contention that under Article 22(1) of the Constitution only grounds of arrest are required to be informed but there is no mandate for them being in writing. They added that even Article 22(5) regarding preventive detention does not provide for written communication.
However, starting from 1962 Constitution Bench decision in Harikisan v State of Maharashtra, upholding this view that grounds of preventive detention should be given in writing and in language understood by the detainee, could ipso facto imply interpretation of Article 22(5) into Article 22(1) too, noted Justice Gavai.
Further still, they pointed out that Article 22(1) had already been construed by this Court recently in Pankaj Bansal v Union Of India (2023), making it abundantly clear beyond cavil that grounds for arresting must reach a detained person in writing and at least once he has been put into custody.
“No doubt remains therefore about this proposition: where any person is arrested either on charges under UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) the fundamental as well as statutory right of such arrested person lies in requiring written grounds of arrest and a copy of that ground be provided to the arrested person as a matter of course without exception, and at once after arrest,” held the bench.
It also held that filing a charge sheet does not validate an illegality or unconstitutionality committed by the police during arrest said Justice Gavai sitting in a bench.
“The Constitution of India under Article 22(1) gives every citizen an entitlement to be informed about grounds given for his/her arrest. If this fundamental right is violated, then the entire process starting from the time of apprehending up to remand shall be vitiated.” Mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting accused and grant of initial police custody, it added.
Other words used
In the given case of Mr. Purkayastha, the judges accepted Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal’s submission that there were subsequent two sentences who had been entered in a judicial order passed by an additional session judge at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on October 4, 2023.
On his part, Mr. Sibal contended that the copy of the Delhi police’s remand application was served to Mr. Purkayastha’s lawyer Arshdeep Khurana through WhtasApp only at 7:07am after the sessions judge had passed an order at 6am remanding the arrestee to police custody for seven days. But still, two sentences were added to the remand order appearing as if the counsel’s version was sought before passing such an order.
“However“, said their judgment, “A mere glance at it is enough for us all to be satisfied that these two lines have been put in later because they are so much finer than those above them and give an indication that they have indeed just been slipped into place.“
However, Justice Mehta delivering judgement of bench stated “it is possible that learned remand judge has heard learned counsel for appellant later on completion of signing of remand but then these lines have been added without any ill will or malafide intentions behind it however fact remains that remand order was already passed at 6:00 am in respect whereof any subsequent hearing if at all provided to advocate were merely fruitless formality.”
