UAPA | Requirements Of S.43B Met When Remand Requisition Report Containing Grounds Of Arrest Is Served On Accused: Madras High Court

As per Section 43B of the UAPA, any officer arresting a person under Section 43A shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.

A remand requisition report is a document prepared by the investigating agency seeking remand of the arrested persons under Section 167 before the Magistrate. It contains the grounds of arrest and copy of the police diary entries. 

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam held that when the grounds of arrest were made available in the remand requisition report which was served to the accused before arrest in the presence of his lawyer, the fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 43B of the UAPA were complied with.

“A perusal of the remand requisition report reveals that the grounds of arrest are stated elaborately which, in our opinion, would be sufficient to form an opinion that the grounds of arrest as required under Section 43B with reference to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments cited supra, have been complied with,” the court observed.

The court further observed that though the language employed in Section 43B of the UAPA was "as soon as may be", the Supreme Court had interpreted it to ensure that the object of the provision in achieved by informing the persons of the grounds of arrest. 

"Let us now consider the language employed in Section 43B of UAPA, which deals with procedure of arrest, seizure, etc. Sub-section (1) stipulates that “any officer arresting a person under Section 43A shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest”. Though the language employed under Section 43B(1) is “as soon as may be inform him of the grounds for such arrest”, the Apex Court interpreted in order to ensure that the object of such a provision is sought to be achieved by informing the person of the grounds for arrest," the court observed.

The court thus opined that when the remand requisition report containing the grounds of arrest was served on the arrested persons who were present before the Magistrate and the same was acknowledged, it would meet the requirements of the act. 

The court was hearing a plea filed by persons challenging their arrest by the National Investigation Agency. It was alleged that one of the petitioners was the leader of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT) organization and through his YouTube Channel “Dr Hameed Hussain Talks”, he had incited young Islamists to secretly implement Islamic Rule to overthrow the democratic government in India. Thus, a case was registered against Hameed and his father and brother under Sections 34, 153B of IPC and Section 12 of the UAPA.

Advocate Abdul Basith, appearing for the petitioners challenged their arrest on two grounds. Firstly, he argued that the grounds of arrest under Section 43B of the UAPA had not been served on the petitioners before arrest. Secondly, he claimed that the notice under Section 41A of the UAPA had not been issued by the competent authority. He submitted that since the requirements were not met, the arrest was illegal and violative of the legal proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in its decisions.

Additional Public Prosecutor Raj Thilak, however submitted that the procedures contemplated under the Act were scrupulously followed while making the arrest. He informed the court that the remand requisition report was served to the petitioners and before serving, its content were also explained orally. He further submitted that at the time of serving the remand requisition report, the petitioner's counsel was also present.

ASG ARL Sundaresan submitted that the object of interpretation was to ensure that the grounds of arrest were informed to the persons. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal and submitted that so long as the person is informed of the grounds of his/her arrest, it would be sufficient compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

The court noted that as per the Supreme Court's orders in PrabirPurkayastha's case and Pankaj Bansal's case the grounds of arrest had to be informed to the person sought to be arrested not only orally but in writing also. In the present case, the court noted that the persons were informed about the grounds of arrest orally and it was also contained in the remand requisition report which was served to them and acknowledged by them.

Thus, finding no infirmity or procedural irregularity, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.I.Abdul Basith

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.R.Karthikeyan Special Public Prosecutor for R2

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 395

Case No: W.P.No.17007 of 2024