The Supreme Court of India has issued a strong directive to police personnel across all States and Union Territories, cautioning them against violating arrest norms. The Court emphasized that any officer found disregarding these rules will face severe consequences.
A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra made these observations while hearing a case where a petitioner alleged that the Haryana Police arrested him in clear violation of the guidelines established in the landmark Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar case. The petitioner also claimed that he was subjected to physical abuse both at the scene and later at the police station.
According to the case records, the petitioner’s brother had promptly emailed the Superintendent of Police upon learning about the arrest. Instead of addressing the complaint, the police allegedly responded with physical assault on the petitioner. The FIR against him was reportedly registered as a reactionary measure nearly two hours after his arrest.
Read Also:- Supreme Court on Res Judicata: Quasi-Judicial Bodies Must Adhere to Legal Finality
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana had earlier dismissed the petitioner’s civil contempt petition on January 12, 2023. Following this, the petitioner filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, seeking justice for the alleged violations.
After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court expressed concerns over the high-handedness of the police, stating:
"Even if a person may be a 'criminal', the law requires that he be treated in accordance therewith. Even a 'criminal', under the law of our land, enjoys certain safeguards in order to ensure protection of his person and dignity. In this case, the petitioner, when picked up by the police, was at best an accused. It is possible to state that a common man can be expected to exceed his limits (whereafter appropriate action in law shall ensue), but not the police."
The Court noted that police officers, as part of the state apparatus, have a direct role in ensuring the security of society. Thus, maintaining public trust in law enforcement is of utmost importance.
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Quashes Prosecution Sanction Against E-Commerce Firm for Delayed TDS Deposit
The Court refrained from making further comments on the specific case since an investigation was already underway. However, it issued a general directive to prevent future violations:
"The concerned police officers are cautioned and warned to be careful in future. The Director General is also directed to ensure that such type of occurrences do not recur and there should be zero-tolerance on behalf of the senior officer(s) with regard to any alleged transgression of authority by any subordinate officer(s)."
Additionally, when the State of Haryana presented a checklist of compliance under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court was not convinced and observed:
"We express our strong reservations with regard to filling-up of the checklist in a mechanical manner. Further, we caution and order that in futuro, such acts should not recur."
The Court also directed judicial magistrates to carefully review such checklists instead of accepting them as a mere formality.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Directs Patna High Court to Oversee Bihar Bridge Collapse PIL
The Supreme Court also referred to its recent ruling in Somnath vs. State of Maharashtra (2024 LiveLaw SC 252), where it noted with concern that police continue to violate arrest guidelines despite repeated judicial warnings. The Court reiterated the need for law enforcement agencies to strictly adhere to constitutional and statutory safeguards while making arrests.
"It is sad that even today, this Court is forced to restate the principles and directions laid down in D.K. Basu. Before D.K. Basu, this Court had expressed its concern as to how best to safeguard the dignity of the individual and balance the same with interests of the State or investigative agency."
The Supreme Court directed its Registry to circulate copies of this order and the Somnath judgment to the Directors General of Police of all States and Union Territories, including the Commissioner of Police for the National Capital Territory of Delhi. This measure aims to reinforce the importance of compliance with arrest guidelines and prevent future violations.
With these directives, the Court disposed of the special leave petition while making it clear that any future transgressions brought to its notice would invite strict punitive measures against the responsible officials.
Case : Vijay Pal Yadav vs Mamta Singh and others
Appearances :
For petitioners: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR, Mr. Vinay Mohan Sharma, Ms. Arti Anupriya, Mr. Kartikey, Mr. Paras Juneja, Mr. Amir Yad, Mr. Vineet Yadav, Ms. Kritika Yadav, and Mr. Baljeet Singh.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G., Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR, Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms. Drishti Saraf, Ms. Aakanksha, Ms. Ishika Gupta, and Mr. Sarthak Arya.
