On Tuesday, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach in the enforcement of arrest protocols, to prevent misuse of power by state authorities and to deter accused persons from exploiting the court’s observations to evade justice. Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih deliberated over whether authorities should be mandated to provide the grounds of arrest to an accused before or immediately after the arrest, a protocol applicable even under the erstwhile Indian Penal Code.
During the session, Justice Gavai pointed out, “We aim to establish equilibrium—curbing the potential for abuse by state machinery without allowing the accused undue advantage from our remarks.”
This discussion stems from the need to address exceptional scenarios where, due to certain exigencies, it might not be feasible to furnish arrest grounds immediately. The bench has reserved judgment on these pivotal legal questions, reflecting on the broader implications of their decisions.
The apex court has previously underscored the constitutional importance of informing an accused of the arrest reasons, declaring in February that this is not merely procedural but a fundamental right under Article 22 of the Constitution. This assertion followed last year’s ruling that deemed the arrest of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act as invalid due to non-compliance with this requirement.
Further complicating the legal landscape, the bench discussed the practical aspects of cases involving red-handed arrests and the potential misuse of judicial observations by the accused to secure release.
These reflections were brought to the forefront in three separate pleas linked to decisions of the Bombay High Court. One notable case involved a BMW hit-and-run incident in July 2024, which resulted in a fatality in Mumbai. The accused in this case contested a November 2024 high court decision that dismissed his challenge against the legality of his arrest due to alleged non-disclosure of arrest grounds.
Another related appeal was filed by a woman accused of tampering with evidence in a fatal Porsche car crash involving her juvenile son last May in Pune. She contested a high court order that escalated a batch of similar pleas to a larger bench for further examination.
