Case Summary: Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)

• Case Title: Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
• Citation: (2024) INSC 414
•  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta.
• Date of Judgment: May 15, 2024 
• Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions: 

1. Constitution of India: Articles 20, 21, and 22(1).
2. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA): Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 22, and Section 43B(1).
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups) and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy).
4. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA): Section 19 (used for comparative interpretation under the pari materia principle).

Facts

The dispute arose following the arrest of Prabir Purkayastha, the Chief Editor of the digital news portal News Click, by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police in October 2023. The arrest was pursuant to an FIR filed in August 2023 under stringent provisions of the UAPA, including those related to terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorist acts, and criminal conspiracy, alongside IPC sections. These charges stemmed from allegations that the news portal received foreign funds to promote specific propaganda.

The critical facts leading to the legal challenge were procedural:

1. Arrest and Documentation: The appellant was arrested on October 3/4, 2023. The computerized Arrest Memo issued by the police lacked any dedicated column for specifying the ‘grounds of arrest’.
2. Failure to Communicate Grounds: The Investigating Officer failed to provide a written copy of the specific, individualized grounds of arrest to the appellant or his legal counsel before producing him before the Remand Judge on October 4, 2023, at 6:00 a.m.
3. Remand and Subsequent Challenge: Despite the procedural lapse, the Remand Judge granted seven days of police custody. The appellant subsequently challenged the legality of his arrest and remand before the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the criminal miscellaneous case on October 13, 2023. This challenge formed the basis of the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues

The Supreme Court was primarily required to adjudicate on the following core legal questions:

1. Whether the failure of the Investigating Officer to communicate the specific ‘grounds of arrest’ in writing to the accused and their counsel, prior to obtaining the initial judicial remand order, constitutes a fatal violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
2. Whether the ratio established in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (which mandated written grounds for arrests under PMLA) should be extended and applied to arrests made under the UAPA, given the pari materia nature of Section 19 of PMLA and Section 43B(1) of UAPA.
3. Whether such a procedural illegality arising from the violation of a constitutional safeguard vitiates the entire process, including the subsequent judicial remand order.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments (Prabir Purkayastha)

The appellant contended that his detention was constitutionally infirm from its inception.

• Fatal Constitutional Infirmity: The failure to provide written grounds of arrest before the remand hearing was a non-negotiable procedural lapse that violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution.
• Ineffective Legal Consultation: The appellant argued that the constitutional requirement of informing the grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but an essential prerequisite for the arrested person to seek effective legal consultation and meaningfully challenge the detention. Verbal communication or the generalized narration of facts picked up from the FIR—even if shared via WhatsApp to the counsel—was insufficient to constitute the precise ‘grounds of arrest’ required for mounting a defense.
• Applicability of Pankaj Bansal: The appellant asserted that the interpretation of the phrase “inform him of the grounds for such arrest” established in Pankaj Bansal (which required written communication) must be applied pari passu to the UAPA, given the identical language in Section 43B(1) of the UAPA.

Respondent’s Arguments (State/NCT of Delhi)

The State sought to justify the arrest and custody, arguing for substantial compliance.

• Substantial Compliance: The State argued that the mandate of Article 22(1) had been substantially met because the grounds were conveyed verbally, and the general allegations and facts were contained within the remand application, a copy of which was shared with the appellant’s counsel (allegedly via WhatsApp).
• Cure by Judicial Remand: It was contended that once a judicial authority (the Remand Judge) passes an order granting custody, any initial defect or procedural irregularity in the arrest process is cured or becomes immaterial, thereby validating the subsequent detention.
• Timing of Precedent: The State initially attempted to argue that the Pankaj Bansal judgment, pronounced on October 3, 2023, should not be immediately applicable to the arrest made on October 4, 2023, citing potential delays in its formal dissemination. The Court, however, dismissed this as “misconceived”.

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous judgment, quashing the arrest and subsequent remand order. The Court focused its legal reasoning not on the merits of the grave allegations but solely on the foundational procedural integrity required by the Constitution.

The Court held:

• Constitutional Mandate for Written Grounds: The requirement under Article 22(1) to be informed of the grounds of arrest necessitates communication in writing. The Court stressed that this right is fundamental and cannot be satisfied by generalized statements, verbal intimations, or standardized, non-specific entries in an arrest memo. The Court clearly distinguished between ‘reasons for arrest’ (general justifications like preventing further offenses) and ‘grounds of arrest’ (specific, individualized material facts linking the accused to the crime), concluding that only the latter fulfills the constitutional requirement.
• UAPA and PMLA Parity: The Court affirmed that the constitutional interpretation applied to Section 19 of the PMLA in Pankaj Bansal is equally applicable to Section 43B(1) of the UAPA, based on the principle of pari materia. The constitutional safeguard overrides any attempts to circumvent due process under specialized statutes.
• Illegality Vitiates Subsequent Process: Crucially, the Court rejected the doctrine that an initial illegal arrest can be retrospectively cured by a subsequent judicial remand order. The failure to comply with the mandate of Article 22(1) was deemed a foundational, jurisdictional flaw that invalidates the entire process of detention, meaning the subsequent remand order was also rendered invalid. The Court explicitly stated that the Remand Judge failed in their duty as a constitutional gatekeeper by not ensuring compliance with the written communication of grounds before granting custody.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding legal principle (Ratio Decidendi) established by the Supreme Court is:

The arresting authority, in compliance with the non-derogable constitutional right enshrined under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and corresponding statutory provisions (like Section 43B(1) of the UAPA), is mandatorily required to furnish the specific, individualized ‘grounds of arrest’ in writing to the accused or their legal representative before the initial judicial remand order is sought or passed. Failure to comply with this procedural requirement is a fundamental constitutional infirmity that renders both the arrest and the subsequent judicial remand order invalid in the eyes of the law.

Obiter Dicta (Observations)

The Court made two significant, though non-binding, observations:

1. Prospective Application: The principles established in this judgment (requiring written grounds) are to be applied progressively—meaning they apply to all arrests made on or after the date of the pronouncement of the Pankaj Bansal judgment (October 3, 2023), which the Court affirmed applies to UAPA cases.
2. No Prejudice to Merits: The Court explicitly clarified that its findings were strictly limited to the procedural legality of the arrest and remand process. The judgment does not, in any way, reflect upon or prejudice the serious allegations levelled against the appellant under the UAPA or the underlying merits of the case, which are left for the Trial Court to examine after the charge sheet is filed.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the arrest of Prabir Purkayastha and the subsequent remand order dated October 4, 2023, were “invalid in the eyes of the law”.

The Court directed the immediate release of the appellant from custody on bail, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions by the Trial Court.

Impact of the Case

The judgment in Prabir Purkayastha v. State has profound implications for Indian criminal jurisprudence, reasserting the supremacy of individual liberty over unchecked executive power, particularly under anti-terror and economic offense laws.

1. Strengthening Article 22(1) as a Jurisdictional Fact: The case establishes the written communication of grounds as a “jurisdictional fact.” Its absence is not a mere technical error but a fundamental violation that deprives the court of jurisdiction to authorize detention, thereby placing a critical check on the power to arrest, even under the UAPA.
2. Judicial Oversight Mandate: It imposes a significant, active burden on the Remand Judge or Magistrate to verify compliance with the written communication of grounds. The Magistrate is now required to act as the primary guardian of constitutional liberty at the initial stage of detention.
3. Universal Procedural Standard: By extending the Pankaj Bansal ratio to the UAPA, the Supreme Court harmonizes the procedural safeguards across India’s most stringent special statutes, ensuring that a high, uniform standard of due process is maintained for all arrests nationwide.
4. Procedural Relief in Strict Statutes: For accused persons facing non-bailable offenses under difficult-to-challenge statutes like the UAPA (where securing regular bail is statutorily restricted), the judgment provides a powerful “circuit breaker.” By challenging the foundational legality of the detention process itself, the accused can seek release on the grounds of constitutional violation, bypassing the rigorous evidentiary thresholds required for merit-based bail arguments.
5. Protection of Free Speech and Dissent: While purely procedural, the judgment’s application in a high-profile case involving a media editor reaffirms that the constitutional safeguards of life and liberty (Article 21) and the right to due process (Article 22) cannot be bypassed by the State even under the guise of national security concerns or against alleged dissenters.