Description

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: TIMESOFINDIA

Context:

Supreme Court clarifies that arrest warrants suffice as grounds for arrest, separate explanation not needed.

Background of the Case

The Supreme Court in the case Kasireddy Upender v/s State of Andhra Pradesh hears an appeal where the appellant claims his son’s arrest is illegal because police fail to provide the grounds of arrest as required by Article 22(1).

The appellant argues that this violates his son’s fundamental rights. After lower courts dismiss the plea, the case reaches the Supreme Court, which examines whether police must always provide a separate document or explanation for the grounds of arrest, even when a warrant exists.

Highlights of the Supreme Court Verdict

Arrest with a Warrant => When police arrest someone based on a warrant, the warrant itself contains the reasons for the arrest. Reading the warrant aloud to the person is enough to meet the requirements of Article 22(1). No additional explanation or document is needed.

Arrest without a Warrant => If police arrest someone without a warrant, they must immediately inform the person of the specific reasons for the arrest. This includes detailing the exact actions the person took that include the offense, not just quoting the law or section under which they are charged.

For example, saying “You violated Section 420 of the IPC” is insufficient; police must explain what actions led to the charge, like “You cheated someone by selling a fake product.” Failure to do so violates the person’s fundamental right under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).

Burden of Proof => If an arrested person claims police did not inform them of the grounds, the police must prove they followed Article 22(1). This might involve showing diary entries or other records that document the communication of the grounds. The Court emphasizes that these grounds must exist before the arrest and be clearly recorded.