Grounds in writing a must during arrests even in UAPA: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Friday pointed to five "evils" associated with the ban on liquor

NEW DELHI: Holding that fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution cannot be interpreted in a restrictive manner, Supreme Court on Monday held that a person's personal liberty cannot be invaded except in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution, even if accused of a grave offence and anti-social activities, reports Amit Anand Choudhary.Elucidating Article 22 of the Constitution, which offers protection against arrest and detention in certain cases, a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar said a person must be provided with the grounds of arrest by the probe agency at the time of arrest in writing and its language understandable to the accused. SC said this is applicable in all cases including under special laws - such as PMLA and UAPA - regardless of the nature and gravity of offence.

'Court nod required for re-arrest when flouting Article 22'

Going a step further, the bench said that if a person's arrest is declared illegal for non-compliance with Article 22, then he or she cannot be re-arrested in the same case without approval from a senior police officer and nod from the court concerned."We need to remind ourselves that Constitution or a constitutional provision cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. Interpretation of Constitution cannot also be left to imponderables in the form of ifs and buts.

Constitution is based on certain basic principles, much above the statutory threshold. Therefore, violation of Constitution or a constitutional provision cannot be countenanced. It has to be dealt with strictly.

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 SC's verdict in the Prabhu Dayal Deorah case on preventive detention, the court said, "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 Constitution and laws."

The bench said that when a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed and it is necessary that the person must understand on what grounds he has been arrested."The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest in the light of and under Article 22(1) is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard. 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 Constitution, rendering the arrest illegal," the bench said.