Grounds of arrest at the time of apprehension must be in writing : No verbal explanations
Supreme Court Upholds Written Communication of Arrest Grounds, Invalidates Arrest in Ahmed Mansoor Case. Apex Court Emphasizes Compliance with Section 43B of UAPA and Article 22(1) of Constitution, Grants Liberty for Subsequent Legal Recourse
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reinforced the statutory and constitutional requirement for providing written grounds of arrest, setting aside the arrest of Ahmed Mansoor and others due to procedural non-compliance. The judgment, delivered by Justices M.M. Sundresh and Vipul M. Pancholi, underscores the importance of written communication of arrest grounds as mandated under Section 43B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution.
The appellants, charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and UAPA, argued that they were not provided with written grounds of arrest at the time of apprehension, a claim uncontested by the respondents. Instead, it was contended that the grounds were explained verbally during remand proceedings, a practice deemed insufficient by the Supreme Court.
The Court highlighted that compliance with Section 43B of the UAPA and Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires furnishing written grounds at the time of arrest, ensuring the arrested individuals have the necessary information to defend against custodial remand and seek bail. The judgment cites precedents from cases such as Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), reiterating the necessity of written communication to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 21.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the role of Section 50A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which obligates informing relatives or nominated persons about the arrest and its grounds, safeguarding the fundamental right to liberty. The judgment criticized the High Court's interpretation of Supreme Court precedents, clarifying that verbal explanations during remand do not fulfill the statutory requirements.
The Supreme Court's decision allows for the possibility of subsequent legal recourse by the respondents, should a valid case for arrest be made. The judgment stands as a significant reminder of the procedural safeguards necessary to protect individual liberties within the framework of law enforcement.
Bottom Line:
Compliance with Section 43B of UAPA necessitates furnishing written grounds of arrest to the arrested individual at the time of apprehension; verbal explanations at the time of remand are insufficient.
Statutory provision(s):
- Section 43B, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
- Article 22(1), Constitution of India
- Section 50A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
