Source: Indian Express

Introduction

The Supreme Court, in its significant ruling in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024), invalidated the arrest of Newsclick founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha in a terror case. The court ordered his release, citing the failure of the Delhi Police to inform Purkayastha of the grounds of his arrest before taking him into custody.

What is the Background of the Prabir Purkayastha v. State?

• Purkayastha's arrested around 6:30 am by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police. Alleging that Newsclick received funds for pro-China propaganda, the Delhi Police invoked the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
• The First Information Report (FIR) listed serious charges under various sections of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) including unlawful activities, terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorist activities, conspiracy, promoting enmity between different groups, and criminal conspiracy.
• Purkayastha's contention that he was taken for his remand hearing at 6:30 am without prior notice.
  • His lawyers were informed about the proceedings only after 7 am, following his insistence.
  • The remand application sent to his lawyers via WhatsApp was unsigned and lacked details such as the time and grounds of arrest.
• Despite objections filed before 8 am, Purkayastha's lawyers were informed that the remand order had already been granted, allowing seven days of police custody.
  • Notably, official records indicate that the remand order was signed at 6 am, prior to Purkayastha's appearance before the judge or notification to his lawyers.
• Furthermore, the FIR was made public several days after Purkayastha's arrest.
• Purkayastha's argument centers on the illegality of his arrest due to the lack of adherence to due process.

Why is the Legality of Purkayastha's Arrest in Question?

• Purkayastha's fundamental argument was that his arrest was illegal and not according to due procedural under Indian Constitution.
• Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which is about protection against arrest and detention,
• “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.
• In Purkayastha’s case, He was brought for his remand hearing at 6:30 am without advance notice.
• Only after his insistence, his lawyers were informed about the proceedings after 7 am.
• The remand application sent to his lawyers via WhatsApp was incomplete, lacking essential details such as the time and reasons for arrest.

What is Article 22 of Indian Constitution?

• Article 22 of the Indian Constitution provides certain safeguards to individuals who are arrested or detained.
• Article 22(1) states that no person can be arrested or detained without being informed of the grounds for such arrest or detention, except under certain circumstances specified in Article 22(2).
• Anyone arrested must be informed, as soon as possible, of the grounds for their arrest and allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.
• If a person is arrested and detained under a law providing for preventive detention, the grounds of detention must be communicated to the person, and they have the right to challenge the detention before an appropriate authority.

What is Article 22(1) of Indian Constitution?

• Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950, provides a fundamental right, guaranteeing an arrested person the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest.
• It states that anyone arrested and detained must be informed of the grounds for their arrest and the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.
• This provision ensures transparency and fairness in arrest and detention, preventing arbitrary or unlawful detainment.
• In recent case Supreme Court observed that “the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose.”
• It was held that the arrestee must be informed of the grounds for his arrest in writing “as a matter of course and without exception”.

What are the Effective Requirements Related to Article 22 (1) Laid Down by Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) laid the following requirements for effective enforcement of fundamental rights:

• An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have one friend, relative or other person who is known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.
• The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right.
• An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest.
  • These protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly.

What are the Major Case Laws Related to Article 22 of Indian Constitution?

• In recent case Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023) Supreme Court held that to give true meaning to constitutional and statutory mandates, “it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception”.
• In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979) the Supreme Court held that every accused individual lacking the means to secure legal representation possesses a constitutional entitlement to receive free legal services from the State. It is the constitutional duty of the State to provide a lawyer to such individuals if the demands of justice require it. Failure to offer free legal aid could lead to the trial being nullified for contravening Article 21.
• In the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) the Supreme Court held that access to legal counsel is a fundamental right and that the government is obligated to provide legal aid to those who cannot afford it. This decision proved pivotal in ensuring that everyone, irrespective of financial resources, could avail themselves of legal representation.
• The Supreme Court issued guidelines for the arrest and detention of a person in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) which included the requirements that the arresting officer must inform the person of their right to legal representation and that they must be informed of their arrest by a relative or friend. This choice was important.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment elevates the importance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention. The Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024) upholds fundamental constitutional protection by emphasizing the requirement to promptly inform the arrested individual about the grounds for arrest.