Prabir Purkayastha vs State (Nct Of Delhi) ([2024] 6 S.C.R.

666)
Facts-
In the present case, a Special Leave Petition was filed by Prabir Purkhyastha against the Delhi High Court’s
decision rejecting the appellant’s case questioning the legality of his arrest and remand. The SLP was
admitted. The issue of arrest and remand in the present case stems from the following facts:
●​ An FIR was filed against the Appellant and M/s. PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd., a company of which
he is a director, on 17th August 2023. In pursuance of the same, a raid was carried out at the appellant
and the said company’s premises.
●​ The FIR was registered under Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, and 22C of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 (UAPA), read with Sections 153A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
●​ The raid resulted in the search and seizure of numerous documents and digital devices belonging to the
Appellant. This led to his arrest on 3rd October, 2023.
●​ As a part of the procedure, an arrest memo was prepared in a computerised form which did not have any
mention regarding the grounds of the arrest of the appellant.
●​ Subsequently, the Appellant was produced before the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi at 6;00 a.m. on
4th October, 2023 and the Hon’ble Court remanded the Appellant to seven days of police custody.
●​ The Appellant promptly questioned his arrest before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi which was
rejected. Thus, the present SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court lies.

Issues Involved:
●​ Whether the arrest of the Appellant was illegal and in gross violation of the Fundamental Rights of the
Appellant guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India?
●​ Whether the Hon'ble Patiala House Court’s remand order is in violation of constitutional mandate
including failure to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice during the Remand
Proceedings, being violative of the Appellant’s under Article 22 of the Constitution of India?

Decision and Reasoning:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the contention of the Appellant regarding the application of the ratio of
Pankaj Bansal and Ors v. Union of India (2023) urging that there is an inherent difference between the
provisions contained in Section 19 of the PMLA and Section 43A and 43B of the UAPA. The Appellant
referred to the observations made in the judgment of Pankaj Bansal(supra) and urged 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.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the laws regarding informing an arrested person of the grounds of
arrest are the same in two statutes: the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act. Both laws require the arresting officer to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest
as soon as possible, which is a constitutional right protected under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution.
Therefore, the court ruled that the same interpretation of this right should apply to both laws and that an
arrested person has the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing. It was held that Article 22(1)
of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to know the grounds of arrest. Violating this right makes the
arrest and remand process illegal and unconstitutional. Filing a charge sheet later doesn't justify or fix the
initial illegality of the arrest and initial police custody remand.

As for the question of whether it is mandatory to communicate the grounds of arrest or detention even when
the constitutional mandate under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) does not explicitly require it, the Hon’ble Court
relied on the judgment in the case of Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Others (1962), and held that the
communication of the grounds of detention to the detenue in writing and in a language which he understands is
imperative and essential to provide an opportunity to detenue of making an effective representation against the
detention and in case, such communication is not made, the order of detention would stand vitiated as the
guarantee under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Given the above reasoning, the Hon’ble Court rejected the
respondent’s contention that in case of preventive detention grounds of detention need not be provided to a
detenue in writing.

Deciding upon the facts, the Hon’ble Court held that a copy of the FIR was never brought in the public domain
as the same was not uploaded on the website by the Investigating Agency. Admittedly, the copy of the FIR was
not provided to the appellant despite an application having been made in this regard till after the order of
remand was passed. The Hon’ble Court highlights a significant violation of the appellant's rights under Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India. The appellant was arrested on October 3, 2023, and was required to be
produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. However, the appellant was presented before the Remand Judge
at his residence before 6:00 a.m. on October 4, 2023, without being informed of the grounds of arrest in
writing.

The Hon’ble Court noted that the remand application, which contained the grounds of arrest, was sent to the
appellant's advocate after the remand order had already been passed. This violates the appellant's right to be
informed of the grounds of arrest and to seek legal counsel. It also highlighted the difference between "reasons
for arrest" and "grounds of arrest." The former refers to general reasons for arrest, such as preventing the
accused from committing further offences, while the latter refers to specific details that necessitate the arrest.

Ultimately, the Hon’ble Court declared the appellant's arrest and subsequent remand order to be invalid and
ordered their release from custody.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court's seminal judgment in Prabir Purkayastha's case has unequivocally established that the
constitutional guarantee under Article 22(1) mandates informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest in
writing, thereby safeguarding their fundamental rights. This landmark ruling has far-reaching implications,
particularly in cases involving arrests under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). However, the Kerala High Court's recent pronouncement that
this judgment is not applicable retrospectively has introduced a critical caveat, potentially limiting its
applicability to cases where arrests were made prior to the judgment. Notwithstanding this temporal limitation,
the Supreme Court's ruling remains a robust affirmation of the Constitution's safeguards against arbitrary
detention and a significant benchmark for ensuring that arresting authorities adhere to the sacrosanct principles
of due process.