Even a Criminal Enjoys Safeguards as per Law, Supreme Court Sends Judgment on Arrest Procedures to DGPs Nationwide ; Warns That a Very Strict View Shall Be Taken if Police Exceed Their Limits
Isabella Mariam
The Supreme Court Division Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the conduct of police officials towards an accused must strictly conform to constitutional and statutory safeguards. The Court recorded its reservations regarding alleged high-handedness by police personnel and found that the checklist required under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appeared to have been filled mechanically. It directed the Director General of Police, Haryana, to ensure that such instances do not recur, and cautioned that failure to comply could lead to coercive measures against the errant personnel.
The matter before the Court pertained to a Special Leave Petition filed against an order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in proceedings arising from an alleged unlawful arrest. The petitioner asserted that he was not treated in accordance with the law during a police investigation concerning a dispute with his neighbour. His counsel submitted that the police violated the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 73, which govern lawful arrest procedures.
The petitioner claimed that he was subjected to physical abuse both at the scene and at the police station. In support of this, reference was made to an email sent by the petitioner’s brother at 11:24 AM on the date of the incident, addressed to the Superintendent of Police. The email reportedly raised concerns over the petitioner's arrest. It was submitted that following the email, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the petitioner at 01:30 PM, which, according to the petitioner's counsel, was an act of retaliation intended to formalize the custody after the fact.
The petitioner’s counsel asserted that the police acted in a manner contrary to the procedural safeguards mandated under the law. They alleged that the FIR was registered not on the basis of independent investigation but as a knee-jerk response to the complaint raised to higher authorities. The alleged custodial violence and the timing of the FIR formed the core of the petitioner’s grievance.
Pursuant to a direction issued by the Court on 12 February 2025, the Director General of Police, Haryana, appeared in person. The State filed a compliance affidavit setting out the factual matrix and actions taken. During the hearing, the State's counsel also produced a checklist under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which pertains to the justification of arrest in non-cognizable offences without a warrant.
The Court examined the contents of the checklist and observed that it lacked substance and failed to reflect application of mind. The petitioner's counsel insisted that the document was prepared post facto to justify the petitioner’s illegal detention.
After hearing both sides and examining the materials on record, the Court stated: “We find that there appears to be evident high-handedness on the part of the police in this case. Even if a person may be a ‘criminal’, the law requires that he be treated in accordance therewith. Even a ‘criminal’, under the law of our land, enjoys certain safeguards in order to ensure protection of his person and dignity.”
The Court observed that the conduct expected from law enforcement is distinct from that of a private citizen: “It is possible to state that a common man can be expected to exceed his limits (whereafter appropriate action in law shall ensue), but not the police.”
It was further noted by the Court that the checklist presented by the State appeared to be a formality. “Perusal of the same prima facie does not inspire confidence. Rather, it appears that only as a formality, the same has been submitted.” The Court stated: “We express our strong reservations with regard to filling-up of the checklist in a mechanical manner. Further, we caution and order that in futuro, such acts should not recur.”
Emphasizing judicial oversight, the Court recorded: “Even the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, before whom the checklist is submitted, would also be under an obligation to carefully apply his mind and not, as a matter of routine, accept such checklist.”
The Court acknowledged the existence of a criminal case pending before a competent court and held: “Since already much water has flown and there is a proper police case, of which the concerned Court is in seisin, we consider it appropriate to close the present proceedings. Dependent on the outcome of the police case, parties shall have legal remedies as available in law.”
The bench stressed the responsibility of senior officers in curbing excesses by their subordinates. It directed: “The Director General is also directed to ensure that such type of occurrences do not recur and there should be zero-tolerance on behalf of the senior officer(s) with regard to any alleged transgression of authority by any subordinate officer(s).”
In further observations, the Court added: “The police is a very vital part of the State apparatus and has a direct bearing on the safety and security of the society at large and individuals in particular. The need, therefore, for maintaining the confidence of individuals and society-at-large in the police is paramount.”
Before concluding, the Court reproduced and endorsed observations made in Somnath v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 338, stating:
“It is sad that even today, this Court is forced to restate the principles and directions in D K Basu (supra)... there will be a general direction to the police forces in all States and Union Territories as also all agencies endowed with the power of arrest and custody to scrupulously adhere to all Constitutional and statutory safeguards and the additional guidelines laid down by this Court when a person is arrested by them and/or remanded to their custody.”
The Supreme Court directed that the Director General of Police, Haryana, must take steps to prevent future instances of police misconduct. It cautioned all police personnel involved and stated: “We are confident that the Director General of Police has been appropriately sensitized and expect that transgressions of the nature alleged herein would not happen again. Failing which, as and when the same is brought to our notice, a very strict view shall be taken, and coercive measures shall also follow against the errant personnel.”
Also Read: OCI Cards Cannot Be Cancelled Arbitrarily Without Giving a Hearing: Delhi High Court
The Court also directed the Registry to circulate the judgment and its referenced observations to the Directors General of Police of all States and Union Territories, including the Commissioner of Police for the National Capital Territory of Delhi: “Registry shall mark a copy of this Order and the Judgment in Somnath (supra) to the Directors General of Police of all the States and Union Territories, including the Commissioner of Police for the National Capital Territory of Delhi, as a reminder to strictly adhere to all safeguards available to persons under custody.”
The personal appearance of the Director General of Police, Haryana, was dispensed with, and the petition along with pending applications was disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Vinay Mohan Sharma, Ms. Arti Anupriya, Mr. Kartikey, Mr. Paras Juneja, Mr. Amir Yad, Mr. Vineet Mr. Baljeet Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Senior Additional Advocate General; Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms. Drishti Saraf, Ms. Aakanksha, Ms. Ishika Gupta, Mr. Sarthak Arya, Advocates
Case Title: Vijay Pal Yadav v. Mamta Singh and Others
Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20330/2023
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
[Read/Download order]
