In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court underscored the imperative of holding investigating officers accountable for non-compliance with constitutional mandates during arrests. Justice Kaushik Goswami highlighted that without such accountability, violations of Article 22 would persist, undermining the rights of arrestees. The court's observations came while granting bail to an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to constitutional safeguards.
Background of the Case
The case involved an individual accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that the police received information about illegal cannabis trade in the accused's residence. Upon investigation, the accused allegedly led the police to the concealed contraband. However, the defense contended that the arresting authorities failed to follow mandatory procedures for search and seizure as stipulated under the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022.
Court's Observations on Constitutional Violations
Justice Goswami expressed dissatisfaction over the arresting authorities' failure to inform the arrestee of their rights under Article 22 of the Constitution. He noted that such non-compliance leaves courts with no option but to grant bail, even in serious offenses. The judge emphasized that unless investigating officers are held liable for lapses in following mandatory arrest procedures, constitutional safeguards will continue to be compromised.
Recommendations for Systemic Reforms
The court urged the Chief Secretary of Assam to take appropriate steps to ensure strict compliance with mandatory arrest procedures. Justice Goswami recommended the formulation of guidelines to hold arresting officers accountable for non-compliance with Article 22 mandates. He also highlighted the potential misuse of mandatory requirements by arresting authorities, underscoring the need for oversight and accountability.
Implications for Law Enforcement Practices
This ruling has significant implications for law enforcement agencies, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to constitutional mandates during arrests. It serves as a reminder that procedural lapses can lead to the erosion of fundamental rights and may result in the release of individuals accused of serious offenses. The judgment advocates for systemic reforms to ensure that constitutional safeguards are upheld in practice.
Conclusion
The Gauhati High Court's decision reinforces the importance of constitutional compliance during arrests. By advocating for accountability and systemic reforms, the court aims to uphold the rights enshrined in Article 22 and prevent their violation. This ruling serves as a call to action for law enforcement agencies to prioritize constitutional mandates and for the state to implement measures ensuring their adherence.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.