PRABIR PURKAYASTHA vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI), 2024

PRABIR PURKAYASTHA vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI), 2024

Case Title and Citation: PRABIR PURKAYASTHA V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2024 INSC 414 (15 May 2024)

Factual Background

The Appellant, Prabir Purkayastha, a Director of M/s. PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd., was subjected to extensive raids by the Delhi Police Special Cell at his residence and business premises. These actions were taken in connection with an FIR registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), along with provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant was arrested on October 3, 2023. Crucially, the arrest memo prepared by the police did not contain any column or disclosure detailing the “grounds of arrest”. The Appellant was subsequently produced before a Special Judge on October 4, 2023, sometime before 6:00 a.m., where he was remanded to seven days of police custody. The Appellant contended that this remand was illegal because he was not provided with the grounds of arrest and his chosen legal counsel was not present during the remand hearing, which the police procured clandestinely in the early morning. The Delhi High Court dismissed his petition challenging the arrest and remand.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) requires that a person arrested under the UAPA must be communicated the grounds of their arrest in writing.
2. Whether the initial police custody remand order was legally valid when the grounds of arrest were not provided to the accused in writing and the proceedings were conducted without the presence of the accused’s chosen legal counsel.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and declared the Appellant’s arrest and the subsequent remand order dated October 4, 2023, to be invalid in the eyes of law. The Court ruled that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrested person. As a chargesheet had been filed in the case, the Court directed the Appellant to be released from custody upon furnishing bail and bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Reason for the decision

1. Constitutional Mandate for Written Grounds: The Court held that the constitutional protection under Article 22(1) mandates that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing. This requirement is considered a “salutary and sacrosanct” fundamental right. The necessity to provide written grounds stems from the need to offer the arrested person the only effective means to consult an Advocate, oppose police custody remand, and seek bail.
2. Uniform Application of Law: The Court confirmed that the ratio established in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (regarding written grounds under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) applies uniformly (pari passu) to cases under the UAPA because the relevant language in Section 43B(1) of the UAPA is “verbatim the same” as Section 19(1) of the PMLA, and both provisions are rooted in Article 22(1).
3. Procedural Defects and Clandestine Remand: The Court noted that the arrest memo only listed general “reasons for arrest” (formal parameters common to any accused) but did not contain the specific “grounds of arrest,” which are detailed facts personal to the accused person and necessary for their defense. Furthermore, the Appellant was presented before the Remand Judge before 6:00 a.m. in a “clandestine manner” without informing his engaged Advocate, Shri Arshdeep Khurana. The Advocate was only informed and received a copy of the remand application after the remand order was passed at 6:00 a.m., rendering any subsequent opportunity for hearing an “exercise in futility”.
4. Invalidity of Illegality: The Court emphasized that any infringement of the fundamental right to be informed of the grounds of arrest vitiates the process of arrest and remand. The mere fact that a chargesheet was subsequently filed does not cure the initial illegality and unconstitutionality committed at the time of the arrest and the initial police custody remand.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court invalidated the Appellant’s arrest and remand due to the blatant non-compliance with the constitutional requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing and the failure to adhere to due process by preventing the Appellant’s chosen counsel from attending the critical remand hearing. The judgment reiterates that the right to personal liberty demands strict compliance with legal procedures, establishing that written grounds of arrest are a mandatory, non-negotiable requirement for individuals detained under the UAPA or any other offense.