Fundamental Right to be Informed of Grounds of Arrest in Writing: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) (CaseLaws)

Prabir Purkayastha v. State(NCT of Delhi) (2024 INSC 414)

Summary of the CaseLaw
The Supreme Court of India addressed a challenge to the arrest and initial police custody remand of a person under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), alleging a gross violation of the constitutional right to be informed of the grounds of arrest.

Facts/Dispute: The appellant, Prabir Purkayastha, was arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell on October 3, 2023, for offenses under the UAPA. The arrest memo itself did not contain a column specifying the 'grounds of arrest'. The appellant was produced before the Remand Judge early in the morning of October 4, 2023, and remanded to police custody, with his engaged advocate, Shri Arshdeep Khurana, only being informed via WhatsApp at 7:07 a.m., after the remand order was passed at 6:00 a.m.. The appellant challenged the arrest and remand as illegal on the ground that he was never informed of the grounds of his arrest, either orally or in writing, as mandated by the Constitution.

Key Legal Issues:
Whether the failure to provide the grounds of arrest to an accused in writing before the initial police custody remand constitutes a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

Whether the interpretation that requires written grounds of arrest in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) (as held in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India) is applicable pari passu to arrests made under the UAPA.

Whether the subsequent filing of a charge sheet can cure any initial illegality or unconstitutionality committed during the arrest and initial remand.

The Court Held That: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, declaring the arrest and subsequent remand invalid in the eyes of law.

The Court held:
The statutory requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest in writing, established for PMLA cases, is equally applicable (pari passu) to persons arrested under the UAPA.

The constitutional and statutory mandate requires that a copy of the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest.

The failure to provide the written grounds of arrest to the appellant or his counsel before the remand order on October 4, 2023, vitiated the arrest and subsequent remand.

The subsequent filing of a charge sheet does not validate the illegality and unconstitutionality committed at the time of the arrest and initial police custody remand.

Key Legal Principles Established:
Mandatory Written Grounds of Arrest (Article 22(1)): The right to be informed of the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) , and this requirement must be fulfilled by providing a copy of the written grounds of arrest to the arrested person. This is essential for the arrested person to seek legal advice and oppose the remand.


Uniformity of Constitutional Safeguards: The interpretation of the fundamental right under Article 22(1) and the statutory procedural mandates in the PMLA are held to be uniformly applicable to special enactments like the UAPA.


Vitiation of Initial Proceedings: Any infringement of the fundamental right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, in writing, vitiates the entire process of arrest and initial remand.


No Curing by Subsequent Action: The initial illegality and unconstitutionality of an arrest due to the violation of fundamental rights cannot be cured by the mere subsequent filing of a charge sheet.

Relevance:
This judgment strongly reinforces the sanctity of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty (Article 21 and 22) against arbitrary action by investigating agencies, even under stringent special laws like the UAPA. It establishes a universal rule that the provision of written grounds of arrest is a non-negotiable constitutional requirement for a valid arrest, ensuring an arrested person can meaningfully exercise their right to consult an advocate and seek legal remedies