“SC Rules Grounds of Arrest Communication Mandatory for UAPA Accused, Expands Scope of Pankaj Bansal Precedent”

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has broadened the application of the precedent set in the Pankaj Bansal case to individuals arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court emphasized the mandatory communication of grounds of arrest to the accused, highlighting the parallel provisions in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the UAPA.

The case in question involved the arrest of Prabir Purkayashtha, founder of NewsClick, under various sections of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code. Despite repeated remand orders, the appellant challenged the legality of his arrest, asserting a violation of constitutional and procedural safeguards.

Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal argued that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest contravened Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). He invoked the precedent set in the Pankaj Bansal case, asserting that the provisions of Section 43B(1) of the UAPA mirrored those of Section 19(1) of the PMLA.

The Assistant Solicitor General contended that differences in language between the statutes precluded the application of the Pankaj Bansal precedent. However, the court, upon careful examination, found no significant variance in the relevant provisions.

The Supreme Court held that the constitutional mandate to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest applied uniformly to both the PMLA and the UAPA. Emphasizing the fundamental right enshrined in Article 22(1), the court underscored the importance of timely communication of grounds of arrest for the accused to seek legal counsel and challenge custodial remand.

Furthermore, the court clarified that the filing of a charge sheet did not validate an illegal arrest, emphasizing the need to uphold constitutional safeguards from the outset of arrest proceedings.

The ruling establishes a precedent ensuring adherence to procedural safeguards in arrests under the UAPA, reaffirming the significance of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings.

As the case proceeds, this ruling is poised to have far-reaching implications for the interpretation and application of legal provisions governing arrest procedures in cases involving national security concerns.

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!