In a recent significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified the distinction between 'reasons for arrest' and 'grounds of arrest'. This came during an appeal against a Delhi High Court order, reviewed by a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.
The case involves a director of M/s. PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd., whose premises were extensively searched by officers of the PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. These searches led to the seizure of numerous documents and digital devices. The FIR in question involves serious allegations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, a crucial issue arose when the computerized arrest memo lacked the 'grounds of arrest'.
After his arrest, the appellant was brought before the Additional Sessions Judge in New Delhi and was remanded to police custody for seven days. The remand proceedings faced strong criticism from the appellant’s senior counsel, Kapil Sibal, who alleged manipulation and subsequent insertions in the remand order.
Challenging both the arrest and remand orders, Kapil Sibal argued in the Delhi High Court that the FIR was based on mere conjecture, lacking substantive allegations. He emphasized that the FIR, only provided to the appellant after his arrest, depicted a fictional narrative devoid of essential facts or material justifying its registration. Moreover, the FIR was neither made publicly available nor supplied to the appellant promptly, violating fundamental rights under Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India.
This case has drawn attention to the critical issue of transparency and the protection of fundamental rights in the process of arrest and detention, underscoring the need for clear communication of the grounds for arrest to safeguard individual liberties.
