New Delhi, Delhi
In a significant ruling concerning arrest procedures and the personal liberty of citizens, the Supreme Court has held that an arrested person must be informed in writing of the grounds for their arrest. The court clarified that this right is not limited to ordinary criminal cases but also applies to arrests made under special laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar interpreted the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution and observed that fundamental rights cannot be interpreted through a narrow approach. The court stated that interference with an individual’s personal liberty can take place only by following the legal procedure established under the Constitution.
Grounds of Arrest Must Be Provided in Writing
The Supreme Court held that investigating agencies are required to inform an accused of the grounds for arrest at the time of arrest. These grounds must be provided in writing. The information should also be communicated in a language that the concerned person can easily understand.
According to the court, informing an accused of the grounds of arrest is not merely a procedural formality. It is essential for the effective exercise of the person’s constitutional and legal rights. An individual must be aware of the basis on which action has been taken against them.
UAPA and PMLA Also Covered
The bench clarified that the protection available under Article 22 also applies to cases involving special laws, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The court indicated that constitutional safeguards cannot be completely set aside merely because the allegations are serious or the law involved is stringent. The requirements prescribed by law and the Constitution must be followed during the arrest process.
Strict View on Re-Arrest After an Illegal Arrest
The bench also made important observations regarding re-arrest when the prescribed arrest procedure has not been followed. If an arrest is declared illegal because the requirements under Article 22 were not complied with, re-arresting the person in the same case cannot be treated as a routine or straightforward procedure.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is being viewed as significant in maintaining a balance between individual liberty and the powers of investigating agencies. The judgment underlines that even in cases involving serious allegations, the arrest process cannot be placed outside the scope of constitutional safeguards.
