Subscribe
The Supreme Court, on Monday, September 21, held that the grounds of arrest must be provided to an accused in writing, in a language they understand, even when the arrest is made under special laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar said the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) (which protects an arrested person from being detained without being informed of the grounds of arrest and also guarantees the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer) applies irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence.
The bench was hearing the petition filed by Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol, who was arrested on May 17, 2026, in Punjab in a case alleging aggravated sexual assault of a minor girl, his stepdaughter, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He had approached the Supreme Court challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order allowing the police to seek his re-arrest after his initial arrest was declared illegal for violating Article 22(1).
The court said fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution cannot be interpreted restrictively and that a person's personal liberty cannot be invaded except in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and law.
The bench said, “The requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest in the light of and under Article 22(1) is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard.”
It further held that failure to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible would violate their fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22.
“Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as may be, it would amount to violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, rendering the arrest illegal,” the bench said.
The court also rejected the argument that the gravity of an offence could justify a departure from constitutional safeguards.
“It is not dependent on the nature or gravity of the offence, encompassing within its sweep all offences. It cannot be interpreted in a restrictive manner,” the bench said.
Referring to a Supreme Court's earlier ruling concerning preventive detention, the bench observed that the seriousness of a threat to the community cannot by itself justify an invasion of an individual's personal liberty.
“The gravity of the evil to the community resulting from anti-social activities can never furnish an adequate reason for invading the personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and laws,” the court said.
The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier judgment in Prabir Purkayastha v State (NCT of Delhi), which involved UAPA provisions. In that case, the court had held that a person arrested under UAPA has a fundamental and statutory right to receive the grounds of arrest in writing. Prabir Purkayastha, founder-editor of news portal NewsClick, was arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell on October 3, 2023, under the UAPA in a case alleging that the portal received illegal foreign funding to promote Chinese propaganda and undermine India’s sovereignty and security. He was released by the Supreme Court in May 2024 after it declared his arrest illegal for failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing.
The Supreme Court also laid down a safeguard concerning re-arrest. If an arrest is declared illegal because of non-compliance with Article 22, the person cannot be re-arrested in the same case without approval from a senior police officer and the permission of the concerned court.
The requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest enables an accused to understand the allegations against them, consult a lawyer, challenge police custody and seek bail.
The judgment comes against the backdrop of constitutional safeguards governing arrests under criminal and special laws.
UAPA is India's principal anti-terror and national-security law and contains provisions allowing investigation and detention for longer periods than under ordinary criminal procedure.
Under Section 43D(2) of UAPA, the investigation period can, in appropriate cases, be extended beyond the ordinary 90-day period up to 180 days before an accused becomes entitled to statutory or default bail for failure to complete the investigation and file a chargesheet. Such an extension is not automatic.
The Supreme Court has previously held that extension of the investigation period under UAPA requires application of mind by the Public Prosecutor and the court. The court held that an extension cannot be granted as a routine exercise and that the accused must be produced before the court when the extension is considered.
The court is required to examine the progress of the investigation and the reasons for continued detention. A mere assertion that the investigation is pending is insufficient. The legal requirement under Section 43D(2)(b) also requires the Public Prosecutor's report to indicate the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for seeking continued detention.
