The Supreme Court has done well to reiterate the fundamental principles of arrest and affirm the need to protect individual freedom from State overreach. Invoking Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the Court asserted the right of an arrested person to be told the grounds of arrest and that a failure to do so would entitle the arrested person to immediate release. It is mandatory to communicate the reasons for arrest in writing in a language the arrested person understands. The Court said it was a “non-negotiable” right that applies “across the spectrum, including offences under the BNS or under special enactments”. Non-compliance violates the fundamental rights of the accused, so investigating agencies must be careful not to breach Article 22(1). The bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and A S Chandurkar also laid down strict procedures for rearrest.

Police often rearrest people released by courts, frequently as an assertion of power or to harass those individuals, forcing them to undergo the entire process again. In most cases, the rearrest beats the letter and spirit of the court’s order. As the Court pointed out, it also violates the fundamental right of the individual. The bench noted that the investigating agency is required to file an application for custody before the magistrate who had released the person, explaining what necessitated the rearrest. The Court has prescribed a procedure involving a superior authority in the agency and the magistrate, which should be concluded expeditiously. It has also directed disciplinary action against erring police officers involved in the initial arrest.

Much of the procedure elaborated by the Court would not need explicit articulation in a system where the police adhere to sound investigative principles and fully respect citizens’ constitutional rights. The apex court rejected the government’s argument that the police have more room for action when the charges against the arrested person are serious. It noted that the idea of liberty does not diminish when the charges framed against a person are made more severe. This is an important principle. It rightly said the release after an unconstitutional arrest should not be treated as bail because the detention was illegal to begin with, and directed high courts to award suitable compensation for violations of Article 22 in cases of arrest. With the top court’s guidelines in place, the police and the courts must now uphold the framework without room for breaches. (Source: DH)