Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi quashed the arrest and remand of three individuals booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to conspiracy and promotion of communal disharmony. The Court set aside the Madras High Court’s finding that serving the remand requisition report amounted to compliance with Section 43B of the UAPA, holding instead that written grounds of arrest must be provided to the accused at the time of detention. It concluded that the failure to do so rendered the arrests and remand orders legally unsustainable.

The case arose from the arrest of three individuals by the police, who were charged with offences punishable under Sections 153A, 153B, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 13 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The arrests were made on allegations of engaging in unlawful activities and conspiracy. The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellants had been furnished with the grounds of arrest at the time of their apprehension, as required under Section 43B of the UAPA.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Rental Compensation Requires Complete Deprivation of Property | Denies ₹238 Crore Claim Against Nashik Municipal Corporation

The appellants contended that they had not been informed in writing of the grounds of arrest, rendering their arrest and subsequent remand illegal. The respondents argued that the requirement was met since the remand court had explained the grounds during the remand proceedings and a copy of the same was provided to the counsel representing the accused.

The High Court had earlier accepted this contention, holding that the statutory mandate was satisfied when the remand requisition report containing the grounds of arrest was served on the accused. The appellants challenged this finding before the Supreme Court, asserting that mere explanation or oral communication did not fulfil the statutory requirement under the UAPA. The appeal thus centered on the interpretation of the constitutional and statutory mandate regarding communication of the grounds of arrest.

The Bench recorded that “the only issue for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellants have been furnished with the grounds of arrest when they were apprehended and, if not, whether an explanation given by the jurisdictional Court at the time of remand... would be in sufficient compliance of Section 43B of the UAPA.”

The Court stated that “on facts, there is no dispute that the grounds of arrest were not furnished, either to the appellants or to the persons arrested with them.” It observed that the respondents’ argument that the grounds were explained by the remand court and a copy was provided to counsel could not satisfy the statutory requirement.

Referring to Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576, the Court stated that “it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.” It further recorded that “as this form of communication is not found to be adequate to fulfill compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) PMLA, we have no hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in keeping with the provisions of law.”

Quoting Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, the Bench observed that “once this Court has interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land.”

The Court also cited Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., recording that “the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person.”

Also Read: Suspension of Liquor Licence for Alleged Illegal Possession Can Be Revoked Upon Payment of Penalty; Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Prolonged Suspension

The Bench recorded that “we are inclined to hold that the present appeal deserves to succeed only on the ground that the mandate of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing the appellants has not been complied with. Therefore, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case. However, while setting aside the order passed by the High Court and consequently setting aside the order of arrest and remand, we would only say that liberty is granted to the respondents to take recourse to law, to arrest, if a case is made out.”

“Suffice it is to state that the explanation by the Court before whom the arrestees are produced can never be an adequate compliance of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing an accused. The appeal stands allowed, accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. A. Velan, AOR; Navpreet Kaur, Adv.; Mr. Prince Sing, Adv.; Mr. Abdul Basith, Adv.; Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv.; Ms. Kanika Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raja Thakare, A.S.G.; Mr. G. Siddi Ramulu, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Rohit Khare, Adv.; Ms. Tusharika Sharma, Adv.; Ms. Adya Jha, Adv.; Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv.; Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR.

Case Title: Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. v. The State
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4505 of 2025
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi