Kerala Police Violate SC Orders: Legal Flaws in Arrests of Dr. Ram & T.G. Mohandas

11 Aug Kerala Police Violate SC Orders: Legal Flaws in Arrests of Dr. Ram & T.G. Mohandas

✎ The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Supreme Court directives mandate that arrested persons must be informed of the grounds of arrest and allowed to inform a relative of their arrest; non-compliance renders the…

Subject Relevance — Where This Topic Fits

• GS Paper II — Fundamental Rights (Articles 21 and 22)  |  GS Paper III — Role of Police and Criminal Justice System
• Prelims: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, Supreme Court directives in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), Section 35(3) of BNSS, Judicial review of police actions, Right to be informed of grounds of arrest, Right to inform a relative of arrest
• Essay: The balance between individual liberty and state authority in criminal justice administration, Judicial activism in safeguarding constitutional rights

Quick Revision: The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Supreme Court directives mandate that arrested persons must be informed of the grounds of arrest and allowed to inform a relative of their arrest; non-compliance renders the arrest procedurally invalid and liable to judicial challenge.

Why is this in the news?

The Kerala Police have faced judicial scrutiny for procedural lapses during the arrests of T.G. Mohandas and M.K. Ram, leading to their bail in high-profile cases. Courts have highlighted non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Supreme Court directives, raising concerns about police accountability and adherence to constitutional safeguards in arrest procedures.

Background

• The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, introducing reforms to strengthen procedural safeguards in criminal investigations and arrests.
• The Supreme Court, in landmark judgments such as Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), has consistently emphasised the need for strict adherence to constitutional and statutory safeguards during arrests to prevent arbitrary detention.
• Kerala’s recent cases involving T.G. Mohandas and M.K. Ram underscore recurring issues of police non-compliance with mandatory arrest procedures, particularly the failure to issue grounds of arrest and inform relatives.
• Judicial scrutiny in such cases serves as a check on executive overreach and reinforces the principle of ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The BNSS mandates that arrested persons must be informed of the grounds of arrest and allowed to inform a relative or friend of their arrest, failing which the arrest may be deemed illegal.

Constitutional and Statutory Safeguards in Arrests

• **Right to be informed of grounds of arrest (Article 22(1) of the Constitution)**: Every arrested person must be informed of the grounds for their arrest, ensuring transparency and preventing arbitrary detention.
• The Supreme Court, in **Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)**, directed police officers to not arrest accused persons for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years unless the arrest is necessary, based on credible information or reasonable suspicion.
• The arrested person must also be permitted to inform a relative or friend of their arrest, a safeguard aimed at ensuring accountability and preventing ‘disappearances’.
• Courts have repeatedly held that mere apprehension of absconding or tampering with evidence is insufficient to dispense with these mandatory procedures unless supported by cogent evidence.
• Judicial review of arrest procedures acts as a deterrent against police excesses and reinforces the doctrine of ‘due process’ in criminal justice administration.
• The principle of **proportionality** requires that the state’s action in arresting an individual must be justified by the gravity of the offence and the necessity of the arrest.
• Violations of these safeguards not only render arrests illegal but also undermine public trust in law enforcement institutions.

UPSC Value Addition

Prelims Practice Questions

Q1. Consider the following statements regarding the procedural safeguards during arrest as laid down by the Supreme Court of India:
1. The arrested person must be informed of the grounds for arrest at the time of arrest.
2. A relative or friend of the arrested person must be informed of the arrest within 24 hours.
3. The arrested person is entitled to consult a legal practitioner of their choice during interrogation.
4. The police must produce the arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.

How many of the above statements are correct?

1. Only one
2. Only two
3. Only three
4. All four

Answer: All four — Statements 1, 3, and 4 are correct as per the Supreme Court’s directives on arrest procedures. Statement 2 is incorrect as the intimation to a relative or friend is required but not necessarily within 24 hours; the timeline is typically within a reasonable period.

Q2. Assertion (A): The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, mandates that the police must issue a notice to the arrested person stating the grounds of arrest.
Reason (R): This requirement is derived from the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) and subsequent judicial pronouncements.

Options:
A. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
B. Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A.
C. A is true, but R is false.
D. A is false, but R is true.

Answer: ? — Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true. The BNSS, 2023, incorporates the Supreme Court’s directives in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), which laid down mandatory procedural safeguards during arrest, including the requirement to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest.

Q3. Match the following provisions related to arrest procedures with their respective legal sources:

Column I (Provision)
A. Intimation of grounds of arrest to the arrested person
B. Intimation of arrest to a relative or friend
C. Production of arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours
D. Right to consult a legal practitioner during interrogation

Column II (Legal Source)
1. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India
2. Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
3. Supreme Court directive in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
4. Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India

Options:
A. A-2, B-3, C-4, D-1
B. A-3, B-2, C-1, D-4
C. A-2, B-3, C-1, D-4
D. A-1, B-4, C-2, D-3

Answer: ? — Correct matches are: A-2 (Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 mandates intimation of grounds of arrest), B-3 (Supreme Court directive in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal), C-4 (Article 22(2) requires production before a magistrate within 24 hours), D-1 (Article 22(1) guarantees the right to consult a legal practitioner).

Mains Practice Question

✍ The procedural safeguards during arrest, as enshrined in the Constitution and reinforced by the Supreme Court, serve as a bulwark against arbitrary state action. Critically examine the significance of these safeguards in balancing individual liberty with the imperatives of public order and effective law enforcement. (15 Marks)

Approach: MODEL-ANSWER SKELETON:
1. **Introduction (2 marks)**: Define procedural safeguards during arrest and their constitutional basis (Articles 21, 22). Highlight the Supreme Court’s role in evolving these safeguards through landmark judgments (D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997; Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994).

2. **Key Safeguards (5 marks)**:
– **Right to be informed of grounds of arrest** (Article 22(1), Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023).
– **Intimation of arrest to a relative/friend** (Supreme Court directives).
– **Production before a magistrate within 24 hours** (Article 22(2)).
– **Right to consult a legal practitioner** (Article 22(1), D.K. Basu guidelines).
– **Prohibition of custodial violence and torture** (Constitutional morality, international covenants).

3. **Judicial Scrutiny and Enforcement (4 marks)**:
– Role of the judiciary in reviewing police actions (e.g., bail jurisprudence in the instant case).
– Consequences of non-compliance: exclusion of evidence, quashing of arrest, and judicial censure.
– Recent statutory codification in BNSS, 2023, and its alignment with judicial precedents.

4. **Balancing Liberty and Public Order (3 marks)**:
– Tension between individual rights and state’s duty to maintain public order.
– Judicial balancing through proportionality tests (e.g., in cases involving sedition or hate speech).
– Critique: Over-emphasis on procedural formalities may delay justice or enable accused to evade law.

5. **Conclusion (1 mark)**: Reiterate the necessity of these safeguards as a check on executive overreach while ensuring that they do not become a tool for impunity.

Source: The Hindu

Generated by AanyaAi for educational purpose.

• Author
• Recent Posts

Tushar

Latest posts by Tushar (see all)

• केरल पुलिस ने सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के आदेशों की अवहेलना कर दो गिरफ्तारियों में कानून तोड़ा - August 11, 2026
• Kerala Police Violate SC Orders: Legal Flaws in Arrests of Dr. Ram & T.G. Mohandas - August 11, 2026
• सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 19 राज्यों से पूछा: कब होगी कैंसर मरीजों की अनिवार्य रिपोर्टिंग? जानिए पूरा मामला - August 11, 2026