Person detained should be told about grounds of arrest at the earliest: HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an arrest, even for a short duration, can inflict an indelible stain on a person’s social standing. Making it clear that reputation was an invaluable asset intrinsically linked to an individual’s right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, a Bench observed that mere detention was often equated with guilt in public perception, causing irreversible damage to one’s dignity despite acquittal.
The assertion came as the Bench emphasised the importance of adherence to procedural safeguards in criminal cases “when the fundamental rights of an individual are at stake”. The court ruled that such safeguards were “not merely desirable, but a Constitutional mandate”.
Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Sukhwant Singh versus the State of Punjab, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted that the stigma attached to an arrest would linger, while legal consequences might fade away.
“Unlike a legal acquittal, which is confined to the court records, public perception is shaped by the spectacle of arrest itself, fueling suspicion and causing irreversible damage to one’s dignity. In this way, even a fleeting moment in custody can cast a lifelong shadow,” the court asserted.
Justice Brar reiterated that no person could be detained without being informed of the grounds of arrest at the earliest as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Stressing that this was not a mere procedural formality, but a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary state action, the court observed that the right to legal consultation and representation under Article 22(1) would be rendered meaningless if an arrestee remained unaware of the reasons for detention.
The requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest ‘as soon as may be’ acted as a crucial check on the misuse of power by law enforcement agencies, ensuring that they provided a lawful justification for any arrest, particularly when a warrant had not been issued.
Referring to Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Justice Brar asserted the term ‘forthwith,’ indicating that grounds of arrest must be communicated immediately. “The use of the word ‘forthwith’ in Section 47 also begs the inference that the grounds of arrest must be communicated at the earliest,” the court noted.
“Merely conveying the grounds in technical or mechanical terms, without ensuring his comprehension, would defeat the goal to protect the individual from unlawful detention, prevent misuse of power and reinforce the rule of law,” Justice Brar added. The court further noted that the failure to adequately inform an arrestee of the reasons for detention not only violated Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution, but also rendered subsequent proceedings, such as obtaining a remand order from the magistrate, invalid.
“It is obligatory for the accused to appear before the police officer once such notice is served. Moreover, if the accused complies with the terms of notice, he shall not be arrested unless the police officer is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary and the reasons for the same are recorded in writing,” the court added
Reiterating that adherence to procedural justice is an essential component of the administration of justice, the court observed that any deviation from procedural safeguards when fundamental rights are at stake was impermissible.
“It is a settled law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods are forbidden,” the court asserted.
