Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: Mandate to Furnish Grounds of Arrest Not Fulfilled by Remand Courts — Supreme Court

 

The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that individuals arrested under the UAPA must be furnished with the full grounds of their arrest, and that remand courts cannot proceed with custody orders if this mandate has not been meaningfully adhered to. The Court held that the requirement to inform the arrested person of the grounds of their arrest is not a mere formality, but a constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1). As such, compliance with this obligation is integral to the lawfulness of arrests in UAPA proceedings.

The Court observed that remand orders which proceed without ensuring that the accused has been informed in writing of the grounds of arrest contravene the statutory and constitutional framework. In its judgment, the Court clarified that an arrest memo or a brief note that does not outline specific facts, allegations, or reasons tailored to the individual cannot substitute for the “grounds of arrest.” The Court held that the arrested person must be communicated in writing—or in a manner that leaves a clear record—of the basis of the arrest, including the factual allegations and the legal basis, so that the individual has meaningful opportunity to consult legal counsel and to be prepared for proceedings, including seeking bail.

The Court drew attention to its earlier rulings which extend the principles applicable to ordinary offences to those under the UAPA, reaffirming that the rigours of security law do not dispense with basic procedural protections. Where a remand court fails to verify that the mandate of furnishing grounds of arrest has been met, its order authorising custody may be invalid and may vitiate all attendant remand orders. The judgment serves as a reminder that even in the context of stringent legislation like the UAPA, the suspects’ rights to be informed of the grounds of arrest, to be produced before a magistrate expeditiously, and to challenge custody cannot be overlooked.

Ultimately, the judgment underscores the principle that lawful limitation of personal liberty must be preceded by lawful arrest. This entails not only compliance with the statutory provisions for arrest and remand under the UAPA, but also the fulfilment of constitutional mandates. The Supreme Court’s direction reinforces that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest meaningfully will attract serious consequences, including invalidation of remand orders and the grant of bail or release of the arrested person, notwithstanding the stringent bail regime under the UAPA.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community