In a pivotal verdict pronounced on May 15, the Supreme Court established that an arrest and subsequent remand are deemed illegal if the accused is not formally informed of the grounds of arrest. The Court emphasized that the mere filing of a chargesheet does not rectify the inherent illegality of the arrest, as clarified by Justices B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.
The case in question pertained to the arrest and subsequent remand of NewsClick founder and Editor-in-Chief, Prabir Purkayastha, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. The Court’s decision rested on the absence of written notification detailing the grounds of his arrest.
Delving into constitutional nuances, the Court underscored that Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution mandates the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest. Consequently, any violation of this fundamental right renders both the arrest and remand null and void, irrespective of subsequent legal proceedings such as the filing of a chargesheet.
The crux of the matter revolved around whether written notification of arrest grounds is obligatory, a contention contested by the Delhi Police citing exceptions even in cases of preventive detention under Article 22(5). However, drawing from precedent, including the landmark judgment in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Others, the Court asserted the indispensability of written communication for effective representation against detention orders.
Based on this rationale, the Court reaffirmed that communicating grounds of arrest in writing is imperative, ensuring the accused can take appropriate legal recourse against deprivation of liberty. This interpretation extends to both Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution, given their identical language concerning grounds communication.
Notably, the Court’s ruling has wider implications, applying even to cases registered under the stringent UAPA. Purkayastha’s challenge to the legality of his arrest, citing non-compliance with the precedent set in Pankaj Bansal v Union of India, found resonance in the Court’s decision.
Consequently, the Court invalidated Purkayastha’s arrest and remand, ordering his release pending fulfillment of bail conditions. This landmark judgment not only upholds constitutional guarantees but also underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual liberties against arbitrary state action.
