The Supreme Court has directed that police officers responsible for failing to provide written grounds of arrest must face a departmental inquiry if the investigating agency later seeks to take the accused back into custody.
The Court also said that in such circumstances, the investigation should be handed over to another officer instead of remaining with the officer whose lapse resulted in the initial arrest being declared illegal.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar issued the directions in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, reiterating that supplying written grounds of arrest is a constitutional requirement under Article 22(1).
Failure to comply with that requirement makes the arrest unconstitutional and entitles the detained person to immediate release, the Court held.
However, the Bench clarified that such release does not create an absolute bar on a subsequent arrest in the same case.
If investigators continue to believe that custodial interrogation is necessary, they cannot simply arrest the person again on their own authority. They must first provide the written grounds of arrest and approach the jurisdictional magistrate for permission.
The application seeking custody must also explain why the grounds were not supplied during the original arrest and set out the reasons why custodial interrogation is now required.
The Supreme Court stressed that judicial oversight becomes particularly important where the constitutional violation was committed by the same authority seeking to make the fresh arrest.
“Once there is a breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the power to re-arrest the accused must not be left to the discretion of the very same authority who had violated the said provision of the Constitution. It must have the judicial imprimatur.”
Fresh safeguards for any second attempt at custody
The Bench built upon the procedure earlier prescribed in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra.
Under the framework laid down by the Court, a custody application in such circumstances must carry the endorsement of the investigating officer’s immediate superior.
The superior officer, in turn, must transfer the investigation to another officer and order a departmental inquiry into the failure to provide the grounds of arrest.
If that inquiry eventually establishes wrongdoing and results in an adverse finding, departmental action must follow, with the adverse finding entered in the concerned officer’s service record.
The Court made clear that these consequences are not dependent on the seriousness of the allegations being investigated.
“Violation of the Constitution or a constitutional provision cannot be countenanced. It has to be dealt with strictly. It is not dependent on the nature or gravity of the offence,” the Bench observed.
Case arose from Punjab arrest
The matter concerned an FIR registered in Punjab against Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol over allegations involving the sexual assault of a minor.
Deol was arrested on May 17 and produced before a magistrate more than 24 hours later. The magistrate found that written grounds of arrest had not been supplied to him and consequently declared the arrest illegal, directing his release.
At the same time, the magistrate permitted the police to seek his custody again after complying with the legal requirements.
Deol subsequently approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking protection against re-arrest. The High Court declined to grant such protection, holding that the illegality attached to the first arrest did not give him permanent immunity from another arrest carried out in accordance with law.
The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
Constitutional protection cannot depend on the offence
While considering the appeal, the Supreme Court relied upon its earlier ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah, which held that failure to provide written grounds of arrest makes the arrest and subsequent remand unlawful.
The Court said that if investigators subsequently require the accused’s custody, they must first comply with the constitutional requirement, explain the earlier failure before the magistrate and establish the need for custodial interrogation.
The latest ruling adds administrative safeguards to that process by requiring senior-level scrutiny, transfer of the investigation and a departmental inquiry.
The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order as well as the magistrate’s observations permitting the investigating agency to seek Deol’s custody.
The Bench clarified that it was not examining the merits of the allegations against Deol.
If the investigating agency still considers his custodial interrogation necessary, it must proceed strictly in accordance with the safeguards laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah and the additional directions contained in the latest judgment.
The Supreme Court has also directed that its ruling be circulated among the Directors General of Police of all States and Union Territories, Registrars General of the High Courts and Directors of State Judicial Academies.
