In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed today that the precedent set forth in the Pankaj Bansal v Union of India case, stipulating the provision of written grounds for arrest, extends to cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (UAPA). Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta presided over this significant decision, declaring the arrest of NewsClick founder and Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha under the UAPA as unlawful due to the absence of written grounds provided.
The crux of the matter stemmed from Purkayastha’s petition, contesting the Delhi High Court’s validation of his arrest by the Delhi Police. Purkayastha, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, underscored the failure to furnish grounds of arrest, invoking the principles laid out in Pankaj Bansal’s case. Conversely, the Delhi Police contended that Pankaj Bansal’s ruling was exclusive to the statutory framework of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and didn’t apply to the UAPA or other legislation with distinct provisions.
Examining both the PMLA and the UAPA, the Court found no substantial variance in the language of their respective provisions regarding the communication of arrest grounds. Consequently, it upheld that the mandate to inform the accused of the grounds of arrest in writing, as enshrined in Article 22(1) of the Constitution, applies uniformly to both statutes.
Emphasizing the sacrosanct nature of the constitutional right to life and personal liberty, the Court referenced previous judgments, notably Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Others. It reiterated that the communication of arrest grounds in writing is imperative, reaffirming that any deviation from this requirement renders custody illegal.
Delving into the specifics of Purkayastha’s case, the Court condemned the clandestine manner in which he was arrested and remanded, highlighting the lack of legal representation during the remand proceedings. It denounced the attempt to circumvent due process and withhold arrest grounds, noting that even after the remand order was issued, the appellant was not provided with the written grounds of arrest until later, via WhatsApp.
Dismissively, the Court rejected assertions that the delayed uploading of the Pankaj Bansal judgment absolved the case from its applicability, affirming that the failure to provide written grounds prior to the remand order invalidated the arrest and subsequent custody.
In a resolute conclusion, the Court reaffirmed the indispensability of providing written grounds for arrest, underscoring that any deviation from this constitutional requirement undermines the sanctity of personal liberty and due process.
