'Police Can't Exceed Limits' : Supreme Court Sends Its Judgments On Arrest Guidelines To DGPs Of All States/UTs, Warns Of Strict Action

The Supreme Court in a recent order issued a stern warning to the police personnel of all States and Union Territories against the violation of the norms regarding arrest. The Court warned that officers who flout the arrest guidelines will face strict action.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra made these observations while dealing with a case, where the petitioner alleged that he was arrested by the Haryana police in violation of the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and was subjected to physical abuse both at the spot as well as later in the Police Station.

The bench was informed that as soon as the petitioner was taken into custody, his brother had sent an email to the Superintendent of Police about that. This enraged the police officials, who allegedly physically assaulted the petitioner. It was further alleged that the FIR was registered as a counter-reaction nearly two hours after the petitioner was arrested.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed a civil contempt petition filed by the petitioner on January 12, 2023, against which the present special leave petition was filed.

Earlier, the bench had directed the personal appearance of the Director General of Police before it. After examining the case records, the Court found that there appeared to be "evident high-handedness on the part of the police."

Reminding that even the accused persons have rights, the Court observed :

"Even if a person may be a 'criminal', the law requires that he be treated in accordance therewith. Even a 'criminal', under the law of our land, enjoys certain safeguards in order to ensure protection of his person and dignity. In this case, the petitioner, when picked up by the police, was at best an accused. It is possible to state that a common man can be expected to exceed his limits (whereafter appropriate action in law shall ensue), but not the police."

The Court chose to refrain from making further comments having regard to the fact that the police case is pending. However, it used the opportunity to make certain general observations regarding compliance with arrest norms.

"The concerned police officers are cautioned and warned to be careful in future. The Director General is also directed to ensure that such type of occurrences do not recur and there should be zero-tolerance on behalf of the senior officer(s) with regard to any alleged transgression of authority by any subordinate officer(s). The police is a very vital part of the State apparatus and has a direct bearing on the safety and security of the society at large and individuals in particular. The need, therefore, for maintaining the confidence of individuals and society-at-large in the police is paramount."

When the counsel for the State of Haryana showed the bench a check-list regarding the requirements under Section 41(1)(b) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court did not express much satisfaction. The Court said that the filling-up of the check-list is often done as a mechanical formality.

"We express our strong reservations with regard to filling-up of the checklist in a mechanical manner. Further, we caution and order that in futuro, such acts should not recur."

The Court also directed the Judicial Magistrates to apply their minds to the check-lists, instead of accepting them in a routine manner.

Warning against future violations, the Court said.

"We are confident that the Director General of Police has been appropriately sensitized and expect that transgressions of the nature alleged herein would not happen again. Failing which, as and when the same is brought to our notice, a very strict view shall be taken, and coercive measures shall also follow against the errant personnel."

The Court also quoted from its 2024 judgment in Somnath vs. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 252 where it lamented that the police are still violating the guidelines regarding the arrest.

The Court directed the Registry to forward a copy of this order as well as the judgment in Somnath to the Directors General of Police of all the States and Union Territories, including the Commissioner of Police for the National Capital Territory of Delhi, as a reminder to strictly adhere to all safeguards available to persons under custody.

Appearances :

For petitioners: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR, Mr. Vinay Mohan Sharma, Ms. Arti Anupriya, Mr. Kartikey, Mr. Paras Juneja, Mr. Amir Yad, Mr. Vineet Yadav, Ms. Kritika Yadav, and Mr. Baljeet Singh.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G., Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR, Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms. Drishti Saraf, Ms. Aakanksha, Ms. Ishika Gupta, and Mr. Sarthak Arya.

Case : Vijay Pal Yadav vs Mamta Singh and others

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 380

Click here to read the order