Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Summary prepared by the Centre for Research and Planning, Supreme Court of India.
Case Summaries are prepared to help promote a better understanding of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India. They do not form part of the Court's decision or reasons and are not for use in legal proceedings.
2024 INSC 414 (15 May 2024)
Justice Bhushan R. Gavai, Justice Sandeep Mehta
A Special Cell of the Delhi Police conducted raids on the residential and business premises of the Appellant and PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd., where the Appellant is a Director. The raids were carried out in connection with a First Information Report (“FIR”) filed under various sections of the UAPA, and the Indian Penal Code. During these raids, numerous documents and digital devices were seized. The Appellant was arrested on 3 October 2023. The Appellant was produced before an Additional Sessions Judge and remanded to seven days of police custody on 4 October 2023. The Appellant challenge to the arrest and remand was rejected by the Delhi High Court on 13 October 2023, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Appellant contended that his arrest memo did not include grounds for arrest, and the remand process was conducted without proper legal representation, resulting in an illegal remand order. The Respondent State contended that the arrest followed due process, and there is no constitutional mandate requiring the grounds of arrest to be conveyed in writing under the UAPA.
- A Division Bench (Two Judges) of the Supreme Court held that the Appellant’s arrest and remand into police custody were invalid because the grounds for arrest were not communicated in writing before the remand. As charges had now been framed against the Appellant, the Appellant was ordered to be released from custody after furnishing bail as required by the trial court. The judgement of the Court was authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta.
‘Grounds of Arrest’ must be communicated in writing
The Supreme Court stated that Article 22(1) of the Constitution (‘Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases’) mandates that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing (¶20). The Court noted that the decision in Pankaj Bansal (2023 INSC 866), had held that an individual arrested under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was entitled to be informed of the grounds of their arrest in writing, and the same principle would apply to cases under the UAPA where the statutory language was the same (¶¶18-20). The Court also rejected the State’s argument that in cases of preventive detention, governed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution, no grounds of detention needed to be communicated to the detenu (¶¶23-30).
Distinction Between ‘Reasons’ and ‘Grounds’ of Arrest
The Supreme Court differentiated between ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’ (¶49). The Court observed that ‘reasons for arrest’ are formal and could apply to any accused person (e.g., to ‘investigate the offence’ or to ‘prevent the accused from committing further offences’) (¶49). However, ‘grounds of arrest’ is the detailed information that the Investigating Officer possesses which necessitates the arrest of the particular accused in the particular case (¶49).
Procedural Irregularities in Remand
In the present case, the Supreme Court noted that the Appellant’s chosen legal representative was not informed or present during the remand proceedings where the Appellant was produced and sent to police custody. Instead, a remand advocate was appointed despite the Appellant’s chosen lawyer making himself known to the police (¶34). Crucially, a copy of the FIR was shared with the Appellant's lawyer only after the remand order had already been passed (¶33). The Appellant’s lawyer was not informed of the grounds of arrest in writing until after the remand order had been passed (¶35). Further, the Supreme Court found that the arrest memo did not disclose any grounds of arrest (¶¶37-39, 48).
Prepared by Shambhavi Gupta
Centre for Research and Planning, Supreme Court of India
Case Summaries are prepared to help promote a better understanding of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India. They do not form part of the Court's decision or reasons and are not for use in legal proceedings.
© Supreme Court of India