Published on: 7th June 2026
Authored by: Mrigya Gupta
NMIMS, Indore
I. CASE DETAILS
Full Name – Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation – 2024 INSC 414; [2024] 6 S.C.R. 666
Court – Supreme Court of India – Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Bench – Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta (authored by J. Mehta)
Date of Judgment – 15th May 2024
Statutes – UAPA 1967 (Ss. 13, 16-18, 22C, 43B); IPC 1860 (Ss. 153A, 120B); Constitution (Arts. 20, 21, 22)
II. FACTS & ISSUES
Relevant Facts:
Based on an article published by The New York Times in August 2023, which claimed that NewsClick had been funded by a US-based network associated with Chinese propaganda, a case (FIR No. 224/2023) was filed against Mr. Prabir Purkayastha, Founder & Editor-in-Chief of the online news website, NewsClick, under Sections of the UAPA and the IPC. On 3rd October 2023, his residence was searched, his electronic devices were seized, and he was arrested. The arrest memo was a generic computerised format with no column specifying the grounds of arrest. Neither the grounds in writing nor a copy of the FIR was furnished to him or his counsel before arrest.
At 6:00 a.m. on 4 October 2023, Purkayastha was produced before the Remand Judge without his chosen advocate being notified. The remand application purportedly shared via WhatsApp was relied upon by the State as sufficient disclosure. The Special Judge granted seven days of 2019; police custody. The Delhi High Court upheld the arrest on 13 October 2023, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues:
- Whether failure to furnish written grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
- Whether oral communication or inclusion in a remand application constitutes substantial compliance with Article 22(1).
- Whether the principle in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (PMLA) applies pari passu to UAPA arrests under Section 43B(1).
- Whether a subsequent judicial remand order cures an initially illegal arrest.
- Whether the non-supply of the FIR prior to remand independently violates Articles 20 and 22.
III. ARGUMENTS
Petitioner – Prabir Purkayastha):
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that Article 22(1) is a non-derogable fundamental right requiring the arrested person to be informed of the specific, individualised grounds of arrest in writing not merely orally. This safeguard is substantive, not procedural: it enables the accused to meaningfully instruct counsel and challenge detention. The textual identity of Section 43B(1) of the UAPA with Section 19(1) of the PMLA both deriving from Article 22(1) means the written communication mandate of Pankaj Bansal applies equally to UAPA arrests. The pre-dawn production before the Remand Judge without counsel further violated Article 22(1)2019; right to legal representation. An illegality at the root of an arrest cannot be cured by a subsequent remand order passed without knowledge of the constitutional infirmity.
Respondent – State (NCT of Delhi):
The Additional Solicitor General contended that oral intimation of grounds at the time of arrest met the constitutional standard, as Article 22(1) only requires that the arrested person be 201C; informed 201D; not that this be done in writing. Structural differences between the PMLA and UAPA meant Pankaj Bansal could not be mechanically transplanted. The State argued that the remand application, shared via WhatsApp, sufficiently disclosed the case and that once the Remand Judge applied his judicial mind, any procedural defect was cured. The State also urged that Pankaj Bansal was arrested on the same date as the arrest (3 October 2023), making strict retrospective compliance inequitable. Grounds of arrest need only convey the gist of allegations, not every evidentiary detail.
IV. JUDGEMENT & RATIO DECIDENDI
Decision:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Delhi High Court’s 2019 order, and declared both the arrest and remand order of 4 October 2023 invalid. Purkayastha was directed to be released on bail with conditions fixed by the Trial Court (the charge sheet having already been filed). The Court expressly reserved the merits of the underlying UAPA allegations for the trial.
Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio may be stated thus: the arresting authority, under the non-derogable mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, read with Section 43B(1) of the UAPA, is required to furnish the specific, individualised grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested person before the initial judicial remand is sought. The principle in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India mandating written grounds for PMLA arrests applies pari passu to UAPA arrests, given the textual identity of the provisions and their common constitutional source. Oral communication or inclusion of facts in a remand application does not suffice. Crucially, an initial constitutional infirmity in arrest cannot be cured by a subsequent remand order passed without knowledge of that defect. The distinction between 201C; grounds of arrest 201D; (specific, individualised facts) and 201C; reasons for arrest 201D; (generic justifications) is constitutionally significant: only the former satisfies Article 22(1).
V. CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Fortifying the Constitutional Wall Against Arbitrary Arrest:
This judgment strengthens personal-liberty jurisprudence in India for several reasons. Article 22(1) mandates that a person be informed of the cause of arrest as soon as practicable, a requirement that stands even during an Emergency. Making this requirement written ensures verifiability, whereas oral communication could lead to discrepancies about what information was given.
Applying Pari Materia was correct because both articles are similarly worded and governed by Article 22(1). Differentiating their application would be illogical; the State’s argument based on structural differences failed since the right to know the reason for arrest cannot depend on a statute’s strictness.
The ‘Grounds vs. Reasons’ Distinction – A Practically Vital Clarification:
A crucial practical lesson to be learned from the ruling is the differentiation between “grounds for arrest” and “reasons for arrest”. The Court claims that the reasons are particular, practically testable facts concerning the accused. Nonetheless, the justifications may be broad ones that apply to everyone who is detained, such as flight danger or evidence destruction. This is important since the majority of agencies have been employing generic arrest warrants with meaningless justifications for the accused.
The judgment further reinforces the Pankaj Bansal principle and limits the abuse of the special law. In cases of UAPA, where it is easy to arrest, hard to grant bail, and the process of trial becomes prolonged, it is essential to challenge the legality of the arrest in the initial stages. The judgment provides a concrete procedure for challenging the validity of the arrest that does not depend on the merits of the charges under the UAPA.
Judicial Oversight of the Remand Process – A Gap Partially Addressed:
Though the Court rightly dismisses ‘cure by remand,’ it inadvertently highlights a systemic flaw. Remand proceedings in India, particularly under special laws, frequently occur at dawn without providing the accused time to consult counsel. In its obiter dicta, describing how Purkayastha appeared before the Special Judge without counsel at 6:00 a.m., the problem is identified. Unfortunately, this judgment fails to mandate that remand judges evaluate the adequacy of grounds a necessary procedural change. Critics may argue that the judgment addresses only procedural matters rather than substantive merit. However, this misses the point: while trial courts determine merit, this judgment ensures that even the gravest charges cannot override fundamental constitutional procedures.
Implications for the UAPA and Press Freedom:
This case highlights the arrest of an experienced journalist under UAPA provisions involving foreign funding allegations. The issue centres on balancing free speech. Recently, the Indian government has frequently applied the UAPA to journalists, activists, and academicians. Because Section 43D(5) creates nearly impossible bail requirements, the legality of the initial arrest has become the primary point of contention. The judgment does not absolve the accused from future prosecution or arrest for genuine reasons; it addresses procedural flaws alone. The State may rearrest the individual, provided that it satisfies Article 22(1) and the UAPA Section 43B(1). Ultimately, the decision balances conflicting interests, allowing legitimate security prosecutions while insisting they rest on proper constitutional grounds.
VI. CONCLUSION
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 INSC 414, has heralded a new era for the fundamental rights of Indians with regard to the protection from illegal detention. It is a decision that mandates an explanation in writing of the grounds for arrest made under UAPA, enlarges the applicability of the right under Article 22(1), and denies the concept of ‘substantial compliance’ and ‘cure by remand’.
This judgment stands out for the emphasis placed upon the importance of following due process. Given that special legislation allows for an undue delay in the process of criminal prosecution, the significance of due process, as stressed in the case, will help check the excesses of the executive.
