The Allahabad High Court held that police action based on ignorance of a standing directive from the Director General of Police, resulting in unjustifiable arrest without supplying the grounds of arrest, is illegal and contrary to established legal principles safeguarding personal liberty. The Court observed that the constitutional mandate to protect individual liberty requires that police authorities act with due awareness of legal obligations and comply with procedural safeguards prescribed by law. Arrest without communicating the statutorily mandated grounds to the person arrested, or taking action contrary to clear executive instructions, undermines the rule of law and must be corrected by judicial oversight. These observations came while disposing of a petition filed by an individual challenging his arrest by the police on the basis that the detaining officers failed to communicate the reasons for his arrest, and acted contrary to a circular issued by the Director General of Police that limited arrests in cases of certain offences.
The petitioner approached the High Court contending that he was arrested by police in connection with an offence under the Indian Penal Code, but that the police did not supply him with the grounds of arrest at the time he was taken into custody. He argued that this omission violated his fundamental rights under the Constitution, particularly the right to personal liberty and procedural fairness. According to the petitioner, he was handed over a memo of arrest that merely contained a terse list of offences without any explanation of the factual basis or reasons that justified his arrest. He further submitted that prior to his arrest, there existed a circular issued by the Director General of Police instructing police personnel that arrests in similar categories of cases ought to be made only in exceptional circumstances, and that persons should be asked to join investigation rather than being routinely taken into custody. The petitioner asserted that the police ignored this directive, and that his arrest was arbitrary, unwarranted and contrary to the prescribed guidelines.
In response to the petition, the State defended the police action but did not dispute that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner at the time of arrest. The State’s stand was that the arrest was effected in the alleged interest of investigation, and the police contended that in the course of inquiry, they were constrained to take the petitioner into custody. However, the High Court noted that the law governing arrest, as interpreted by numerous judicial precedents, requires that the person being arrested should be informed of the reasons for arrest and that such reasons must be grounded in objective material indicating necessity for custody. The Court emphasised that failure to supply the grounds of arrest is fatal to the legality of custody, and that such procedural lapses cannot be overlooked merely on the basis of investigative exigencies. The Court further pointed out that a standing circular issued by the Director General of Police, which restricts unnecessary arrests, reflects an administrative recognition of the need to minimise unwarranted deprivation of liberty, and that police authorities are bound to follow such executive instructions pending any judicial review or modification.
Upon examining the record, the High Court observed that the arrest memo provided to the petitioner did not demonstrate any compelling reasons necessitating his detention in custody. The memo contained a bare recital of the sections under which he was sought to be arrested, without any articulation of facts warranting such action. The Court held that mere repetition of statutory provisions without factual backing cannot substitute for meaningful communication of grounds of arrest. It reiterated that merely placing a person in custody under the allegation of an offence does not satisfy the requirement of supplying grounds if the factual basis for detention is not explained. The High Court emphasised that the right to know the grounds of arrest is intrinsic to the right to personal liberty under the Constitution, and police officers cannot treat this safeguard as a formality. The Court noted that this safeguard assumes greater significance in the context of judicial scrutiny, where the legality of detention is often tested on the basis of compliance with procedural safeguards.
The High Court also addressed the relevance of the Director General of Police’s circular, holding that administrative instructions aimed at regulating police conduct, particularly those issued to curb indiscriminate or unnecessary arrests, must be given effect unless they are shown to be contrary to law. The Court underscored that police officers have an obligation to remain informed about relevant directives issued by superior authorities, and ignorance of such directives cannot be permitted to justify actions that encroach on fundamental rights. The Court observed that while the circular did not confer substantive rights on individuals, it imposed procedural limitations on the executive branch, and these limitations were intended to protect personal liberty and prevent misuse of arrest powers. The High Court held that the police should have applied their minds to the content of the circular before effecting the arrest, and that the failure to do so reflected a casual or indifferent approach towards statutory and executive guidelines.
In light of these considerations, the High Court held that the petitioner’s arrest was both procedurally and substantively unsustainable. The Court quashed the detention order and directed that the petitioner be released from custody unless required to be detained in connection with any other lawful order. The Court’s order clarified that the release was not on the merits of the underlying allegations in the case registered against the petitioner, but strictly on the ground that his arrest and detention were illegal due to failure to communicate grounds and disregard of the relevant DGP circular. The High Court’s order, therefore, vindicated the principle that personal liberty cannot be curtailed unless the police adhere to clear legal obligations governing arrest and detention.
The High Court further emphasised that the jurisprudence regarding arrest and detention has evolved to recognise that arbitrary exercise of power by police must be curbed in a democratic society. The Court observed that arrest should not be treated as the default response to every alleged offence, and that custodial deprivation of liberty must be justified on objective grounds demonstrating necessity for investigation, prevention of escape, or ensuring attendance at trial. The High Court referenced established legal principles that require minimal use of custody and maximum reliance on non-custodial measures, except where there is a compelling reason to the contrary. In this context, the Court reiterated that administrative guidelines, such as the DGP circular, reflect a progressive and rights-oriented approach to policing, and must be respected by all law enforcement officers.
The judgment also highlighted the importance of communication of grounds of arrest not merely as a procedural formality but as a substantive safeguard that enables the person arrested to understand the basis of the action and to seek redress effectively. The Court emphasised that communication of grounds allows the arrested person to make an informed representation before magistrates or courts, and enhances accountability of the police. The High Court’s decision, therefore, reinforced the principle that the rule of law demands scrupulous observance of procedural safeguards intended to protect fundamental rights, particularly in matters involving arrest and detention.
In sum, the Allahabad High Court’s order held that an arrest cannot be justified on illegal grounds, that failure to communicate the reasons for arrest vitiates the legality of custody, and that ignorance of binding administrative instructions issued to regulate police conduct cannot be tolerated as an excuse for violating personal liberty. The Court’s directive to release the petitioner underscored its commitment to upholding constitutional protections and ensuring that law enforcement authorities act in accordance with both statutory mandates and executive guidelines designed to safeguard individual freedoms. The judgment serves as a reminder to police authorities that custody should be resorted to sparingly and only when justified by compelling and objectively verifiable reasons, with strict adherence to procedural requirements governing supply of grounds and compliance with relevant directives.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.