Introduction:

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has declared the arrest and remand of NewsClick founder and Editor-in-Chief, Prabir Purkayastha, in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) 1967, as illegal. This ruling, issued by Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, underscored that the filing of a chargesheet does not validate an illegal and unconstitutional arrest. The Court’s reasoning rested on the fundamental right to be informed about the grounds of arrest, which flows from Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution. The judgment emphasized that any breach of this right would vitiate both the arrest and the remand, regardless of subsequent procedural developments such as filing a chargesheet.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Purkayastha, who had been in custody since October 3 of the previous year, argued that his arrest was illegal as the grounds for his arrest were not provided to him in writing. He contended that this failure constituted a breach of his fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that any person arrested must be informed of the grounds for such arrest. Purkayastha’s defense relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s previous rulings, particularly in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which affirmed that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the accused.

The Delhi Police countered by arguing that the necessity to provide grounds of arrest in writing was not explicitly stated in Article 22(1). They further contended that even in cases of preventive detention under Article 22(5), which deals with a different context, grounds of arrest are not required to be given in writing. This line of reasoning aimed to demonstrate that the arrest procedures followed in Purkayastha’s case were consistent with constitutional provisions and existing legal precedents.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court rejected the arguments presented by the Delhi Police, emphasizing that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right under Article 22(1). The Court referred to several landmark judgments, including the Constitution Bench’s ruling in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Others, which highlighted the necessity of providing the grounds of detention in writing and in a language understood by the detenue. This precedent established that effective communication of the grounds for detention or arrest is essential for enabling the accused to make a meaningful representation against the deprivation of liberty.

In its judgment, the Court clarified that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing applies equally to Article 22(1) and Article 22(5). The Court reasoned that the language used in both these provisions regarding the communication of grounds is identical, thereby necessitating written communication to uphold the constitutional guarantees. The Supreme Court stated unequivocally that any deviation from this requirement would render the arrest and subsequent remand orders illegal.

The Court further noted that the ratio laid down in the Pankaj Bansal case, which mandated the supply of grounds of arrest in writing, is applicable to cases registered under the UAPA as well. Consequently, the Court declared Purkayastha’s arrest and remand invalid and ordered his release, subject to furnishing bail and bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court since the chargesheet had already been filed.