Grounds of Arrest vs. Reasons for Arrest: A Crucial Distinction for Personal Liberty

 

The recent Supreme Court judgment in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (Diary No. 42896 of 2023) has brought into sharp focus a critical distinction within the law of arrest: the difference between "grounds of arrest" and "reasons for arrest." This clarification has significant implications for the protection of personal liberty in India.

The Case in Brief:

The case involved Prabir Purkayastha, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of NewsClick, who was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly receiving foreign funds for anti-national activities. The Delhi High Court had upheld his arrest, but the Supreme Court overturned the decision, ruling that his arrest and subsequent remand were illegal.

“These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the 'grounds of arrest' would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused.”

                                        Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta 

The Crux of the Matter: Grounds vs. Reasons:

The Supreme Court emphasized that these two phrases are not interchangeable. The Court, in its judgment, distinguished between these two terms:

• Reasons for Arrest: These are the general justifications for an arrest that can apply to any accused person, such as preventing further offenses, ensuring the accused's presence for investigation, etc.
• Formal in nature.
• Applicable generally to any person arrested for an offense.
• Includes parameters such as preventing the accused from committing further offenses and ensuring proper investigation.
• These reasons are not specific to the individual but rather apply broadly.
• Grounds of Arrest: These are the specific, personal facts and circumstances that led to the arrest of the particular individual. They must be specific to the accused and the alleged offense.
• Personal and specific to the person arrested.
• Must contain all relevant details known to the Investigating Officer that necessitated the arrest.
• Conveyed in writing to the accused.

Key Points from the Judgment:

1.    Arrest Memo Content:

o   The arrest memo (Annexure P-7) prepared by the police lacked a specific column for the “grounds of arrest.”

o   It only contained the “reasons for arrest,” which are general and formal.

2.    High Court Decision:

o   The Delhi High Court had upheld Purkayastha’s arrest, stating that the grounds of arrest were conveyed in writing.

o   However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing the need for personal and specific grounds.

3.    Significance of Grounds of Arrest:

o   The Court stressed that conveying the grounds of arrest is essential for the accused to defend against custodial remand and seek bail.

o   The grounds must provide all basic facts justifying the arrest.

4.    Release Order:

o   The Court declared Purkayastha’s arrest invalid and ordered his release.

o   However, his release was subject to furnishing bail and bonds as per the trial Court’s satisfaction.

 

The Significance of This Distinction :

The court emphasized that both the grounds and reasons for arrest must be communicated to the accused in writing. This is not merely a procedural formality; it is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty. The reasons for arrest might be generic, but the grounds must be specific enough to allow the accused to understand the exact basis of their detention and effectively challenge it.

This distinction serves several crucial purposes:

1.    Fairness: It ensures that an individual is not arrested arbitrarily or without a clear legal justification.

2.    Transparency: It mandates that the police provide a clear and detailed explanation for the arrest, ensuring accountability.

3.    Due Process: It empowers the accused to seek legal remedies, such as bail, based on the information provided.

4.    Protection Against Misuse of Power: By requiring specificity, the court safeguards against the potential misuse of police powers.

Implications for the Legal Landscape:

The implications of the Prabir Purkayastha v. State judgment are significant for both legal practitioners and individuals involved in criminal proceedings. Let’s explore them:

1.    Clarity on Arrest Procedures:

o   The judgment clarifies the distinction between “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest.”

o   It underscores that conveying the specific grounds of arrest to the accused is essential.

o   This clarity ensures that individuals understand why they are being arrested and can defend themselves effectively.

2.    Protection of Fundamental Rights:

o   By emphasizing the importance of providing grounds of arrest, the Court safeguards an accused person’s fundamental rights.

o   Transparency in arrest procedures prevents arbitrary detention and protects against abuse of power.

3.    Bail and Custodial Remand:

o   The judgment highlights that grounds of arrest enable an accused to seek bail and oppose custodial remand.

o   Without proper grounds, an accused may be unjustly deprived of their liberty.

4.    Legal Precedent:

o   The decision sets a precedent for future cases involving arrests under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and other relevant laws.

o   Courts are likely to refer to this judgment when assessing the legality of arrests.

5.    Responsibility of Investigating Officers:

o   Investigating officers must ensure that arrest memos contain specific grounds, not just general reasons.

o   Failure to provide proper grounds may render the arrest illegal.

6.    Balancing Security and Individual Rights:

o   While security concerns are valid, individual rights must not be compromised.

o   The judgment strikes a balance by requiring specific grounds without compromising national security.

In summary, the Prabir Purkayastha case reinforces the need for transparency, fairness, and adherence to due process during arrests. Legal practitioners should be aware of this ruling and advocate for their clients’ rights accordingly

 

Looking Forward:

While this judgment is a positive step towards protecting personal liberty, it is essential to note that the fight for justice and fairness is ongoing. As a Senior Advocate, I remain committed to upholding the principles of due process and ensuring that the rights of all individuals are protected within the framework of the law.

Landmark judgments related to arrest :

 

1.    Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014)¹:

o   Significance: Established the “Arnesh Kumar Guidelines.”

o   Key Points:

§  Arrests should not be common, especially when the potential penalty is less than 7 years of imprisonment.

§  Police must meticulously evaluate the necessity of arrest under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

§  Emphasized due diligence and transparency in arrest procedures.

2.    Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983):

o   Significance: Restricts arbitrary police power.

o   Key Points:

§  Police officers must inform the arrested person of grounds for arrest and their right to apply for bail.

§  Intimate the legal aid committee, inform relatives or friends, and prepare a memo of arrest.

3.    D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997):

o   Significance: Laid down guidelines to prevent custodial torture and abuse.

o   Key Points:

§  Police must follow specific procedures during arrest, including informing the detainee and arranging medical examinations.

4.    Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):

o   Significance: Expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

o   Key Points:

§  Arrests must be reasonable and fair, respecting an individual’s fundamental rights.

5.    Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994):

o   Significance: Addressed preventive detention.

o   Key Points:

§  Preventive detention should not be used to suppress dissent or curb political activities.

6.    State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977):

o   Significance: Clarified the purpose of arrest warrants.

o   Key Points:

§  Warrants are for bringing an accused before the court for trial, not to find them guilty.

7.    Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012):

o   Significance: Dealt with the right to peaceful protest.

o   Key Points:

§  Arrests during peaceful protests must be reasonable and proportionate.

8.    Kuldeep Nayar v. Union of India (2006):

o   Significance: Addressed preventive detention during the Emergency.

o   Key Points:

§  Detention orders must be based on valid grounds, not political considerations.

9.    Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978):

o   Significance: Protection against custodial violence.

o   Key Points:

§  Prisoners’ rights and safety during custody must be ensured.

10.                  Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963):

o   Significance: Laid the foundation for privacy rights.

o   Key Points:

§  Surveillance and arbitrary arrests infringe upon an individual’s privacy.

Disclaimer: This blog post provides general information and should not be taken as legal advice. If you have specific legal questions or concerns, please consult with a qualified legal professional.

If you are in Punjab and need assistance, you can reach out to Umakant Tripathi and Associates LLP at the following numbers:

• +91-7589056455
• +91-9519556455

We are conveniently located in Pathankot, Punjab, and can provide expert legal advice and representation to help you navigate the legal complexities.