On Wednesday, the Supreme Court, in a major ruling expanded the scope of Pankaj Bansal(supra) to the accused arrested under UAPA as it held that the provision regarding the communication of the grounds of arrest to a person arrested contained in Section 43B(1) of the UAPA is verbatim the same as that in Section 19(1) of the PMLA.
A division-judge bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta with the observation held the arrest of NewsClick Founder Prabir Purkayashtha as 'illegal' for non-supply of grounds of arrest to his Counsel.
Brief Facts of the Case
An FIR was registered against the appellant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 22C of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967 read with Section 153A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the course of the search and seizure proceedings, numerous documents and digital devices belonging to the appellant, the company and other employees of the company were seized. The appellant was arrested in connection with the said FIR on 3rd October, 2023. The appellant promptly questioned his arrest and the police custody remand granted by the learned Remand Judge before the High Court of Delhi which rejected the petition. The said order is subjected to challenge in this appeal by special leave.
Contentions of the Parties
The primary contention made by the Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kapil Sibal was that the grounds of arrest were not informed to the appellant either orally or in writing and that such action is in gross violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Reliance was placed on to submit that the mere passing of successive remand orders would not be sufficient to validate the initial arrest, if such arrest was not in conformity with law.
The Senior Counsel urged that the Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal(supra) interpreted the provision of Section 19(1) of PMLA which is pari materia to the provisions contained in Section 43B(1) of the UAPA. Thus, the said judgment fully applies to the case of the appellant. He thus averred that since the grounds of arrest were not furnished to the appellant at the time of his arrest and before remanding him to police custody, the continued custody of the appellant is rendered grossly illegal and a nullity in the eyes of law because the same is hit by the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
Learned ASG, on the other hand vehemently urged that there are significant differences in the language employed in Section 19 of the PMLA and Section 43A and 43B of the UAPA and, thus, the law as laid down by this Court in Pankaj Bansal(supra) does not come to the aid of the appellant in laying challenge to the remand order.
Supreme Court's Observation
The Court after perusing the relevant sections and carefully observing their contents was of the view that that there is no significant difference in the language employed in Section 19(1) of the PMLA and Section 43B(1) of the UAPA.
In view of the above, the court stated that the interpretation of the phrase ‘inform him of the grounds for such arrest’ made by this Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal(supra) should be applied to an accused arrested under the provisions of the UAPA.
"We find that the provision regarding the communication of the grounds of arrest to a person arrested contained in Section 43B(1) of the UAPA is verbatim the same as that in Section 19(1) of the PMLA. The contention advanced by learned ASG that there are some variations in the overall provisions contained in Section 19 of the PMLA and Section 43A and 43B of the UAPA would not have any impact on the statutory mandate requiring the arresting officer to inform the grounds of arrest to the person arrested under Section 43B(1) of the UAPA at the earliest because as stated above, the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is the same in both the statutes. As a matter of fact, both the provisions find their source in the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Hence, applying the golden rules of interpretation, the provisions which lay down a very important constitutional safeguard to a person arrested on charges of committing an offence either under the PMLA or under the UAPA, have to be uniformly construed and applied", the court ruled.
The Court noted that the modified application of Section 167 CrPC is also common to both the statute while holding that the interpretation of the statutory mandate laid down by this Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal(supra) on the aspect of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest in writing has to be applied pari passu to a person arrested in a case registered under the provisions of the UAPA.
"Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest", the court said adding that the purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail.
Any other interpretation would be tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the court stressed.
"The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused", the court observed.
Case Title: Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 Latest Caselaw 331 SC
Case Details: Crl. A. No. 2577/2024
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 331 SC
Advocates for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal
Advocates for Respondent: ASG Suryaprakash V. Raju
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
