In a landmark decision issued on May 15, the Supreme Court drew a crucial distinction between the ‘reasons for arrest’ and the ‘grounds of arrest’, emphasizing the vital importance of clarity in legal procedures. The Court underscored that while the former may encompass generalities applicable to any arrested individual, the latter must delineate specific, personal reasons necessitating an individual’s arrest.
The case in question involved the arrest and subsequent remand of Prabir Purkayastha, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of NewsClick, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta presiding over the bench declared Purkayastha’s arrest illegal, citing the failure to provide him with the written grounds of arrest as mandated by law.
The Delhi High Court’s decision to uphold Purkayastha’s arrest was contested before the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled against it. Despite the High Court’s assertion that the grounds of arrest were adequately conveyed through the arrest memo, the Apex Court found this explanation inadequate. It clarified that the arrest memo merely listed the ‘reasons for arrest’, failing to provide the necessary ‘grounds of arrest’ specific to Purkayastha.
The Court’s judgment stressed the fundamental right of the accused to be informed of the grounds of their arrest, enabling them to effectively oppose custodial remand and seek bail. This legal victory holds significant implications, especially in cases governed by stringent laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Purkayastha’s prolonged custody, initiated on October 3 of the preceding year, based on allegations of receiving foreign funds for anti-national activities, faced legal scrutiny culminating in his release ordered by the Supreme Court. However, his release remains contingent upon fulfilling the bail requirements set forth by the trial court, given the filing of the chargesheet.
This ruling not only underscores the importance of due process and individual rights but also sets a precedent for ensuring procedural fairness in the justice system. As the legal landscape evolves, this decision reaffirms the Court’s commitment to upholding constitutional principles and safeguarding the rights of the accused.
