All accused in custody can question lawfulness of arrest for non-service of reasons in writing even if they were arrested before May 15, 2024: Karnataka High Court
In a judgment with far-reaching consequences on legality of arrest and benefitting a large number of accused persons in judicial custody, the High Court of Karnataka has declared that all the accused, except habitual offenders, are entitled to claim legality of their arrest due to non-service of grounds/reasons of arrest in writing to them by the police, even if they were arrested before May 15, 2024.
The High Court said the benefit of law laid down by the apex court in Prabir Purkayastha's case would be available to accused persons retrospectively, as it related to rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The apex court, in the judgment in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT) of Delhi delivered on May 15, 2024, declared that non-service of grounds/reasons in writing to a person arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act vitiates the process of arrest as it infringes upon the right of accused person to be informed about the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) (an arrested person shall be informed of the grounds of arrest and allowed to consult a lawyer of his or her choice) of the Constitution.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar passed the order while ordering the release of 20-year-old Hemanth Datta of Arsikere in Hassan district, who was arrested on February 17, 2023, on the charge of murder. The petitioner, who is in judicial custody on rejection of his bail pleas, filed the petition in March 2025 contending that his arrest itself was illegal as no grounds of arrest were served to him by the police.
The precedent
Citing the judgement in Purkayastha's case, the High Court said that '... the argument against retrospective application of the principle of procedural justice enunciated in the case of Prabir Purkayastha does not hold good, more so, when the rule of beneficial construction goes beyond the realm of procedural law, and prescribes mitigation or modification of penalty in light of post facto change in substantive law.'
Stating that the legal ratio enunciated in Purkayastha's case has merely expounded the pre-existing constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which has been in effect since January 26, 1950, Mr. Justice Chandangoudar said that any violation of the right to be afforded an opportunity to make an effective representation against the arrest or an order of remand in relation to any offence, shall constitute a contravention of the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the statutory safeguard under Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code, even if the arrest is made prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in Prabir Purkayastha's case.
Trial courts to consider
Meanwhile, the High Court directed that all the trial courts in the State should consider applications for bail made by those in remand and prejudiced on account of non-service of grounds of arrest, even if the accused persons in custody were arrested prior to May 15, 2024.
However, the High Court made it clear that the retrospective benefit of non-service of grounds of arrest in writing would not be available to those arrested under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as the apex court has already clarified this aspect.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
From street name to gobbledygook
The street sign says it all – Yahali 3rd Street. There are three of them, all connecting Anna Salai with GN Chetty Road, at Teynampet, very close to Semmozhi Poonga. Only Yahali is not the correct name. Google maps has compounded matters further. You need to search under Yaya Hali Street if you need to find it. The correct name is Yahya Ali Streets – 1, 2 and 3, and they take their names from Justice Yahya Ali of the High Court of Madras. The learned judge is not in public memory. When I spoke to a friend on this, he said that the Internet has no reference to such a judge, and I guess that would mean such a person did not exist. But he did. And when he died as a sitting judge in 1949, the High Court convened to condole his passing. The brilliant barrister and then Public Prosecutor V.L. Ethiraj led the mourners. He dwelt on the 'keen intellect, great learning, profound human understanding and exquisite courtesy we found in that frail figure.' But to get full biographical details we need to turn to the speech of an illustrious contemporary, V.C. Gopalaratnam who spoke on behalf of the Madras Advocates Association. Yahya Ali was born in August 1893 in Nellore, his father serving as Assistant Secretary in the Finance Department of the Nizams of Hyderabad. He graduated in History and Economics from the Presidency College in 1916 and then qualified in Law. He set up practice in Nellore and became Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor. He was a member of the Madras Legislative Council as well. In between he became Chairman of Nellore Municipality, his election being testimony to the regard he enjoyed from all residents of the town. It was a place notorious for communal tension and being a Hindu majority, it was considered impossible for a Muslim to win the ballot. In 1926, Yahya Ali became District Judge, being posted in that capacity to various parts of Madras Presidency. His specialisation in matters concerning finance led to his being appointed by the then Imperial Government in 1942 as the Chairman of the Appellate Income Tax Tribunal where he equipped himself 'with a thorough and exhaustive knowledge of Income Tax Law and Procedure.' In 1945 he became a judge of the High Court of Madras. It is interesting to note that he sat in judgement till the last day of his life, taking ill on April 21, 1949, and passing away the next day. While these details are from Gopalaratnam's speech during the condolence meet, we learn some more from what the then Chief Justice had to say. Yahya Ali he noted, was a connoisseur of Telugu poetry and 'he was a deeply cultured person- culture with the best ingredients of what I may call Moghul culture – urbanity, catholicity and instinctive love of all that was beautiful.' What was his link to Teynampet? He was at the time of his death Mutawalli (trustee or guardian) of the Teynampet Mosque in which his family had taken a deep interest. It was also in the precincts of this mosque that Yahya Ali was buried. And eventually a locality was named after him. And from there, the name has morphed phonetically as it were, to what it is now with street names changing accordingly. I wish the Corporation would be more careful with street signs. We have suffered enough mutilation with truncation of many names to initials, morphing of others, and of course, name changes at the drop of a hat.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
No compromise on women's dignity: SC tells lawyer who abused judge
The judiciary cannot compromise when it comes to the safety and dignity of women judges, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, refusing to interfere with the conviction and 18-month jail sentence of a Delhi-based lawyer who verbally abused and threatened a woman judicial officer in court. 'There can be no leniency in ensuring a safe workplace for women judges…Most of the judicial officers in Delhi today are women. They must feel safe at their place of work,' a bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan emphasised. Rejecting an appeal by advocate Sanjay Rathore, the bench added: 'They (women judges) won't be able to function if someone like him gets High Court is right.' The top court's decision comes weeks after the Delhi High Court delivered a scathing verdict, describing Rathore's conduct as 'an assault on justice itself' . The trial court had originally sentenced Rathore to a total of two years' imprisonment for using gendered abuse against a woman magistrate in 2015, but the high court reduced the term to 18 months. Rathore had already undergone six months in jail by the time his appeal was heard in the Supreme Court. His lawyer argued that the incident was a 'spur-of-the-moment' outburst and that further incarceration would be harsh. But the top court remained unmoved. 'Your sentence has already been reduced to 18 months. We can't bring it down. Your matter was duly dealt with by the high court and a strong judgment was issued. We have to ensure the safety of women judicial officers,' the bench said during the hearing. The court also took note of the testimony given under oath by the woman magistrate, who corroborated the charges. 'Look at the kind of language you have used. How will judges work if we entertain your petition?' the bench asked. In its brief order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and granted Rathore two weeks to surrender. The case dates back to October 2015, when Rathore, aggrieved by an adjournment in his case that was passed in his absence, verbally abused a woman magistrate in Karkardooma court, including using gender-specific slurs. The incident prompted the judicial officer to lodge an FIR at Farsh Bazar police station. In 2023, a trial court found Rathore guilty under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code -- 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant), and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty) -- and sentenced him to two years in jail. The high court, while upholding the conviction in May 2025, modified the sentence to 18 months. In her May 26 judgment, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the high court minced no words in rejecting Rathore's plea for leniency. She observed that 'the act of outraging the modesty of a judicial officer while she was presiding over court proceedings… attacks the very foundation of judicial decorum and institutional integrity.' Justice Sharma emphasised that Rathore, being an officer of the court, was expected to uphold its dignity, not undermine it. 'This is not merely a case of individual misbehaviour, but a case where injustice was done to justice itself where a judge… became the target of personal attack while discharging her official duties.' The judgment went on to highlight the larger systemic issue: 'Any act that seeks to threaten or intimidate a judge, especially through gender-specific abuse, is an assault on justice itself and must be met with firm accountability. To trivialise such conduct under the garb of emotional outburst or momentary lapse is to reflect a patriarchal mindset — one that struggles to respect women in authority and seeks to normalise the unacceptable. This cannot be permitted. Not in law. Not in court.' Calling the woman magistrate's experience a reflection of 'a mindset where even women in empowered roles are not seen as immune from humiliation or indignity,' the high court warned that no judicial officer, especially women at the district level who form the 'backbone of our justice delivery system,' should ever feel unsupported or unsafe. 'If a woman holding judicial office is made to feel that her authority is conditional on the civility or restraint of others, the very foundation of judicial independence would get shaken,' Justice Sharma wrote.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Remove high-tension power lines running over school premises: Haryana human rights panel
The Haryana Human Rights Commission (HHRC) has issued directions to the state government to remove high tension electricity lines running over educational institutions across the state. The HHRC in a May 29 order said that the presence of high-tension (HT) electricity wires over school premises was a grave violation of human rights. The commission said that such conditions endangered the life, health, and safe learning environment of children, thus violating their fundamental rights. The commission comprising chairperson Justice (retd) Lalit Batra and members Kuldip Jain and Deep Bhatia noted that a decision was taken as far back as 2013 under the chairmanship of the then chief minister that all high-tension power lines passing over government schools, polytechnics, civil hospitals and veterinary hospitals must be removed by June 15, 2013. The expenses for this exercise were to be borne by the power department. 'However, even after more than a decade, the issue remains unresolved,'' the commission noted. The HHRC ordered that power department additional chief secretary, managing directors of the two power distribution companies – the Uttar Haryana and Dakshin Bijli Vitran Nigams and that of the transmission company- the Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam, directors of secondary and elementary education to submit a detailed report within two months detailing actions taken so far and the timeline for removal of such high-tension electricity lines. As per the orders of the commission, the report is to be submitted on the next hearing on August 6 via video conferencing. The commission observed that it is extremely unfortunate that thousands of school children continue to risk their lives daily due to the presence of overhead high-tension electricity wires. This situation not only violated Article 21 of the Constitution but also contravened the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The HHRC said in their order that action must be taken strictly in accordance with the decision of March 18, 2013, and any contradictory decisions made in 2022 cannot override the earlier mandate.
