In a strongly worded judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has come down heavily on the police for violating the Supreme Court’s guidelines laid down in the landmark Arnesh Kumar judgment. The case under scrutiny involved the arrest of an individual in a matter where the offence was punishable by less than seven years’ imprisonment, and the police failed to comply with the mandatory legal procedures set by the highest court of the country. The High Court took serious note of this violation and issued a warning against such disregard for constitutional and procedural safeguards.
The controversy arose when the petitioner, who had been arrested by the police, approached the High Court alleging that his arrest was unlawful, arbitrary, and conducted without following the safeguards laid out in law. The petitioner argued that the arrest was made without issuing a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which is required for offences with a punishment of less than seven years. Furthermore, the police did not record the reasons for arrest nor did they justify how the conditions for arrest under Section 41(1)(b) of the CrPC were satisfied.
The High Court, after reviewing the submissions and the records of the case, found merit in the petitioner’s claims. The bench noted that the police had indeed acted in complete violation of the Arnesh Kumar judgment, which had been specifically introduced to prevent unnecessary arrests and to safeguard the personal liberty of citizens. The Court emphasized that the liberty of an individual is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed without due process of law.
The Court pointed out that the Arnesh Kumar guidelines are not merely advisory but are binding in nature. According to these guidelines, before making an arrest in offences punishable with less than seven years, police officers are required to evaluate whether the arrest is necessary, issue a notice of appearance under Section 41A, and maintain a checklist demonstrating reasons for the arrest. In this case, the arresting officer failed to comply with all these obligations.
The judgment also addressed the larger issue of accountability. The Court observed that non-compliance with these procedural safeguards amounts not only to violation of the Supreme Court’s binding judgment but could also constitute contempt of court. The High Court directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Director General of Police and other senior officers for awareness and strict compliance. It warned that future violations by police officers may lead to initiation of contempt proceedings and other disciplinary actions.
The Court also took a strong view of the role of the Magistrate who had remanded the accused to custody without properly examining whether the arresting officer had complied with the legal requirements. The bench noted that Magistrates are not passive endorsers of police actions, but must actively ensure that the constitutional rights of the arrested person are protected at every stage of the judicial process. A reminder was issued that the Magistrate should refuse remand unless proper justification is provided by the police regarding the necessity of arrest.
In conclusion, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court reiterated the importance of adhering to the due process of law and emphasized that arrests should not be used as a tool of harassment or intimidation. It declared that mechanical arrests and routine remands cannot be permitted in a democratic society governed by the rule of law. The ruling serves as a clear message to police officers across the Union Territory that failure to respect the constitutional rights of individuals will not be tolerated and that adherence to legal norms is not just a formality but a fundamental duty of every law enforcement officer.
This judgment stands as a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s role as the guardian of individual liberty and its commitment to curbing arbitrary use of power by the police. It highlights that procedural safeguards, particularly in cases involving lesser offences, are essential to prevent abuse of authority and ensure that the criminal justice system functions with fairness, accountability, and transparency.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.