[This blog is authored by Anvesha Agarwal, a student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida].

Introduction

Arrest under the law is a serious violation of an individual’s personal liberty if done unlawfully. It is for this reason that an arrest must be made by following all the guidelines specified by the statute and various cases. The necessity of striking a balance between the powers of the police to detain an individual and the breach of an individual’s personal liberty was addressed in this case. This case was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, under the writ of Habeas Corpus.

Article 32  confers authority upon the Supreme Court to grant a writ of habeas corpus, protecting a person’s fundamental right to freedom (Article 21).  Furthermore, Article 19 protects the rights of the citizens to move freely throughout the territory of India. his writ serves as a barrier against wrongful detention by forcing the government to appear in court with the detained individual and provide evidence for their incarceration. Habeas corpus basically means “produce the body.” A petition for this writ may be submitted in the event that someone is believed to have been detained illegally. The court then considers whether the detention was lawful, making sure it complies with fundamental rights and due process.

Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India are a part of the fundamental rights. Article 21 deals with the right to life, which includes the right of personal liberty and freedom, whereas Article 22, enshrined in the constitution, provides rights to the accused against arrest and detention.

A petitioner is a 28-year-old man who is a practising advocate. He was called in for enquiry by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad and was subsequently detained for 5 days without being produced before a magistrate. The petitioner’s brother expressed concerns about his sibling’s safety, alleging potential implications in a criminal case and the risk of a fake encounter. Despite efforts to secure the petitioner’s release, he was not produced before the magistrate as required by law; neither was he released from unlawful detention. The petition was filed seeking the release of the petitioner from illegal detention. The purpose of the said detention, as per the police, was to inquire about certain cases. However, this raises issues as it empowers the police to detain an individual by administering arbitrary action. This case is essential in the development of the rights of the accused in order to ensure checks upon the arbitrary actions of the police. It ensures that there is a balance between the powers of the police to arrest in order to curb the problem of increasing rates of crime and such powers going arbitrarily into the hands of the police, violating the fundamental rights of the individuals.

Issues

i) Whether the petitioner was detained, and if he was, then whether the police’s power to arrest is arbitrary in nature?

ii) Should priority be given to the fundamental rights of the accused or the rights of the victim in such cases?

Rules

Statutes: Article 21, 22(1) & 32 of the Constitution of India. Section 41 of the Cr.P.C.

Cases relied on: Nandini Satpathy vs Dani (P.L.) And Anr; People v. Defore (para 9).

Reports mentioned: The Royal Commission Report on Criminal Procedure Sir Cyril Philips,  Third Report of the National Police Commission.

Analysis

The Hon’ble Court, in the present case, laid down guidelines regulating the procedure of arrest in order to ensure fairness. The accused is entitled to inform any one person likely to have interest in his arrest about such an arrest and the location of detention. The accused must be informed of this right when he is brought in for detention and also records in the diary to whom such information regarding the arrest was given. The court ruled that the petitioner was detained unlawfully, violating his fundamental rights as guaranteed by the constitution of India. The court observed that mere authority to arrest granted to a police officer does not automatically justify its exercise. The law demands a demonstrably legitimate basis for utilising this power beyond simply its existence. An arrest and subsequent detention can result in severe reputational and emotional harm to the individual, necessitating a rigorous justification grounded in legal principles.

Cases relied on by the Court

i) Nandini Satpathy vs Dani (P.L.) And Anr: Balancing the competing interests of effective law enforcement and individual rights has long been a fundamental challenge in governance. While past trends may have favoured the expansion of law enforcement powers, concerns remain regarding the potential for abuse and resultant injustice. Achieving a just equilibrium necessitates careful consideration of both sides.

ii) People v. Defore (para 9): The issue necessitates the delicate balancing of two competing social interests: (1) the fundamental societal aim of deterring and repressing criminal activity and (2) the equally crucial societal interest in ensuring legal compliance and preventing abuse of power by law enforcement officials. Both approaches present inherent risks, demanding careful consideration to optimise a solution that safeguards both individual rights and public safety.

Commission reports:The Royal Commission Report   proposed limiting police arrest powers based on the “necessity principle.” This means officers can only arrest someone if it’s truly necessary for their duties, like stopping a crime or investigating one. The goal is to reduce unnecessary arrests and ensure police powers are used consistently and fairly. The court also relied on the Third Report of the National Police Commission (Pg-32), which laid down certain situations wherein the arrest of an accused while the investigation is in the process would be justified.

Critical Analysis

The precedents set in this case are still applicable. Over the years, the individual’s right to liberty and freedom has taken centre stage. In an environment like this, the present case becomes essential as it recognises the need to strike a balance between criminal liability and breach of personal liberty and freedom.

In the present case, the police had acted arbitrarily and the petitioner’s right to liberty was infringed thereby. It is essential that in cases like this, harsh action against the police is taken. In case of non-cognizable offences, the police are required to get a warrant from the magistrate prior to arresting an individual, whereas in the present case, no offence could be made out for detaining the petitioner. The guidelines issued solve a problem that is not highlighted in the present case. The mere knowledge of an individual relating to the arrest of an individual does not solve the arbitrary nature of the act. However, it does put up a procedure that the police must follow in case of an arrest, making it difficult for the police to act arbitrarily. Over the years, several cases have set up stricter procedures and guidelines that every police officer must follow before, during and after arrest.

Any limitations on fundamental rights, such as arrests, must be appropriate for the crime committed. Arrests made without legitimate grounds are against this concept and should not be permitted. ​​In order to prevent crime, it is imperative that basic rights not be sacrificed in the name of security. Moreover, several sections of society, including immigrants, minorities, and vulnerable communities, are particularly susceptible to being targeted for arbitrary arrests, which exacerbates already-existing disparities and breeds mistrust of the police. Arrests made without cause also undermine the rule of law, which requires that everyone follow the same rules and regulations. This fosters an atmosphere that increases the likelihood of power disparities and abuses.

Therefore, the court is correct in laying down guidelines in order to curb such arbitrary actions of the police. This, however, in no way undermines the authority of the police in matters relating to arrest. Today, the various amendments in the statute, as well as the precedents laid down by the court, have ensured a fair procedure relating to arrest. Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure wherein the police may arrest without a warrant, which lays down an exhaustive list ensuring that the police exercises its arbitrariness within the framework created.

Conclusion

The case pertains to the unlawful detention of a petitioner, highlighting the violation of fundamental rights. The court emphasised the necessity for a legitimate basis for arrests, considering the potential harm to an individual’s reputation and emotional well-being. It cited relevant cases and recommendations, such as the “necessity principle” proposed by the Royal Commission and guidelines from the National Police Commission, to limit arbitrary police arrest powers.

The case sets precedents in balancing criminal liability and personal liberty. Additionally, it emphasises the need for police officers to adhere strictly to procedures and guidelines before, during, and after an arrest to prevent arbitrary actions. The case highlights the importance of arrests being appropriate and based on legitimate grounds, further highlighting the adverse impact of arbitrary arrests on vulnerable communities and the rule of law. The court ruling established guidelines to prevent such arbitrary actions by the police without undermining their authority in arrest-related matters.