Mandate Of Serving Grounds Of Arrest In Writing Under UAPA Applies To Arrests From Date Of SC's Pankaj Bansal Ruling: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled that the mandate of serving grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee under UAPA will apply to arrests from the date of pronouncement of Supreme Court ruling in Pankaj Bansal case delivered on October 03, 2023, and not from the date of pronouncement of subsequent decision in Prabir Purkayastha case.“…..the ratio of Pankaj Bansal would apply to...
The Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled that the mandate of serving grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee under UAPA will apply to arrests from the date of pronouncement of Supreme Court ruling in Pankaj Bansal case delivered on October 03, 2023, and not from the date of pronouncement of subsequent decision in Prabir Purkayastha case.
“…..the ratio of Pankaj Bansal would apply to arrests under the UAPA and other criminal offences from the date of pronouncement of Pankaj Bansal (i.e., 03.10.2023) and not from the date of Prabir Purkayastha (i.e., 15.05.2024),” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said.
The Court was dealing with a plea raising the question as to whether the constitutional mandate of serving grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee under UAPA would come into effect from the date of the Supreme Court verdict in Pankaj Bansal case or in Prabir Purkayastha case.
The Court observed that unless the Supreme Court specifically indicates that a decision will operate prospectively, the law so declared by the Apex Court is presumed to have been the law at all times.
Justice Bhambhani noted that the law in relation to arrests in the context of the PMLA declared by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal case was held to specifically apply “henceforth” which means that the interpretation of the law in that case was to be applied prospectively.
The Court also noted that no such observation was made by the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha case in relation to arrests under the UAPA and other criminal offences.
Justice Bhambhani was dealing with a plea moved by three individuals- Thokchom Shyamjai Singh, Laimayum Anand Sharma and Ibomcha Meite, challenging their arrest by National Investigation Agency (NIA) in a UAPA case. They were arrested on March 13 last year.
Singh is the Chief of Army of the United National Liberation Front, a designated terrorist organization. Sharma is the Chief of Intelligence whereas Meite is its active member. It was alleged by NIA that the petitioners were spearheading terrorist activities by raising funds for UNLF by resorting to extortion.
It was alleged that they were recruiting the cadres and procuring weapons to foment violence in the State of Manipur by fanning ethnic strife.
The petitioners challenged their arrest on the ground that it was made in contravention of the requirements of section 50 of CrPC read with section 43B of the UAPA.
The NIA contended that the requirement for furnishing grounds of arrest in writing was laid-down in Pankaj Bansal case only in the context of section 19 of PMLA and that it was only subsequently in Prabir Purkayastha case that the requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee come into effect under the UAPA.
It was submitted that it could not have complied with such a requirement in relation to an arrest made under the UAPA before the decision was delivered in Prabir Purkayastha case.
Ordering their release, Justice Bhambhani rejected NIA's contention and said that the mandate of Pankaj Bansal case would apply to the arrest of the petitioners even though they were arrested on March 13, 2024.
The Court further perused the remand applications of the petitioners and said that the same only stated the gamut of allegations against the petitioners collectively, without any specificity or particularisation as to what was alleged against each of them individually.
“The NIA must remind itself that a constitutional mandate cannot be circumvented by resorting to jugglery of statutory provisions,” the Court said.
It ruled that in light of the verdicts of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha cases, the requirement of serving grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee is compulsory and unquestionable regardless of whether an arrest has been made under the PMLA or the UAPA or under any other criminal statute.
“Moreover, the burden to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution always rests with the Investigating Agency,” the Court said.
Setting aside the arrests, the Court directed that the petitioners be released from judicial custody forthwith unless required in any other case.
Title: THOKCHOM SHYAMJAI SINGH & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH HOME SECRETARY & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 207
