In a significant legal development, the State of Karnataka has urged the Supreme Court that the landmark judgment in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India, which orders the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide written grounds of arrest, should be treated as applicable only prospectively – not retrospectively (past event).

Read also: "Black Cat Commando Must Surrender: Supreme Court Denies Exemption in Dowry Death Case"

A bench of Justices KV Vishwanathan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and posted the matter for further hearing on June 26.

The Karnataka government has challenged the Karnataka High Court's 17 April 2025 judgment, which held that the Pankaj Bansal judgment applies retrospectively - including arrests made before 03 October 2023 (the date of the Supreme Court judgment in Pankaj Bansal). According to the High Court, such past arrests can now be challenged for not being provided with written grounds.

The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India held "it shall henceforth be necessary that a copy of such written grounds of arrest be given to the person arrested, naturally and without any exception."

Read also: Supreme Court Summons UP Jailor for Ignoring Bail Order, Calls It 'Travesty of Justice'

The Karnataka government cited the above line to argue that the Court itself had clearly stated that the judgment would apply only going forward.

The State also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Ram Kishore Arora vs Enforcement Directorate, which held that the Pankaj Bansal guidelines do not apply retrospectively. In simple terms, failure to provide written grounds of arrest before 03.10.2023 cannot be held illegal.

Background of the case

The case relates to a respondent who was arrested in March 2023 under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The authorities claim that both the reasons for arrest and the arrest memo were handed over to him. He was remanded to judicial custody on 03.03.2023 and a chargesheet was filed on 13.04.2023.

Read also: PIL filed in Supreme Court Seeking Grounding of Air India's Boeing Fleet After Ahmedabad Plane Crash

In March 2025, the respondent filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court to quash the remand order. The High Court accepted the petition, set aside the remand order and ordered the release of the petitioner with conditions.

The High Court ruled that there was no proper disclosure of the grounds for arrest, “as soon as possible” and that the disclosure was not in writing, as required by subsequent judgments including Prabir Purkayastha v State (NCT of Delhi) and Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana.

The Karnataka High Court states that “though, non-serving of grounds of arrest is considered to be a mere procedural deviation, now, more recently, in the light of Vihaan Kumar, it has been interpreted as a material irregularity… Any breach of procedural fairness… renders the arrest bad.”

Read also: Supreme Court Stays Deportation of Assam Woman Declared Foreigner by Tribunal

The High Court also rejected the applicability of Ram Kishore Arora, noting that it was decided in the context of arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), while the present case involves offences under the IPC.

• The respondent was provided with all the documents required under the law on 17.03.2023.
• Paragraph 45 of the judgment in Pankaj Bansal clearly mentions that written grounds are required "hereafter".
• The High Court wrongly distinguished Ram Kishore Arora.
• In Prabir Purkayastha, the Supreme Court applied Pankaj Bansal only because the arrest was made after the judgment in Bansal, i.e. on 04.10.2023.
• All statutory requirements were fulfilled in the documents already shared with the respondent at the time of arrest.

The State has warned that the High Court's interpretation may open a "Pandora's box" which may invalidate many arrests made before the judgment in Pankaj Bansal due to non-provision of grounds.

The Supreme Court will now examine whether the High Court has committed any error in applying the Pankaj Bansal guidelines retrospectively. The detailed hearing of the case will be held on June 26.

Case Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARASIKERE TOWN POLICE STATION Versus HEMANTH DATTA @ HEMANTHA @ BABY AND ANR | SLP (Cal) 9295/2025

Appearance: Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra with Advocate-on-Record DL Chidananda