The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on procedural safeguards under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), has held that an explanation of the grounds of arrest by a court at the time of remand is not a valid substitute for the mandatory requirement of providing the accused with written grounds at the time of their apprehension. A Division Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi allowed the appeal, consequently setting aside the arrest and remand of the appellants.
Background of the Case
The appellants, Ahmed Mansoor and others, were charged with offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 13 and 18 of the UAPA. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the failure to furnish the appellants with the grounds of their arrest at the time they were taken into custody was cured by a subsequent explanation provided by the jurisdictional court during the remand proceedings.
It was an undisputed fact in the case that the grounds of arrest were not provided in writing to the appellants when they were apprehended. The State (respondents) contended that this procedural requirement was sufficiently met because the grounds were explained by the court at the time of remand, and a copy was subsequently furnished to the counsel representing the accused.
Court’s Analysis and Reliance on Precedent
The Supreme Court observed that the issue was “no longer res integra” and that the High Court had “misconstrued the earlier judgments passed by this Court.” The bench firmly rejected the respondent’s argument, relying on a series of its own binding precedents that have cemented the necessity of providing written grounds of arrest.
The Court referred to its decision in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. (2024), which interpreted similar provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). In that case, the court held that to “give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate… of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.”
The judgment also extensively quoted Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), which drew a clear distinction between “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest.” The Court had noted that reasons are often formal parameters, whereas grounds must “contain all such details in hand of the investigating officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused.” The purpose of providing written grounds, as reiterated in Purkayastha, is to provide the accused with an opportunity to defend themselves against custodial remand and to seek bail.
Further, the bench cited a supplementing judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., which explained the constitutional rationale behind this safeguard. The Court in Vihaan Kumar observed that communicating grounds of arrest in writing is not “merely a formality” but is essential “to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The respondents’ reliance on the recent decisions in Kasireddy Upender Reddy and State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan was dismissed by the bench, which pointed out that those judgments, in fact, approved and reiterated the law laid down in Vihaan Kumar.
The Final Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court held that the appeal must succeed solely on the procedural lapse. The bench stated, “Suffice it is to state that the explanation by the Court before whom the arrestees are produced can never be an adequate compliance of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing an accused.”
Without delving into the merits of the criminal allegations, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and the consequential orders of arrest and remand against the appellants. However, the Court granted liberty to the respondents “to take recourse to law, to arrest, if a case is made out,” provided the correct legal procedure is followed.
