Written Grounds of Arrest and Personal Liberty; An Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Prabir Purkayastha

Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Case Details

• Case name: Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Date of Judgement: 15 May, 2024
• Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 414
• Bench: Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Brief Facts

An FIR was registered against Prabir Purkayastha, Director of PPK News Click Studio Pvt. Ltd., on 17th August 2023 under Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 22C of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”) read with Sections 153A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). He was arrested on 3rd October 2023. The arrest memo lacked a column for ‘grounds of arrest’. He was remanded to 7-day police custody on 4th October 2023 without being furnished the grounds of arrest.

The High Court rejected his challenge, prompting a special leave petition to the Supreme Court, which was accepted.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 19(1) of UAPA
• Sections 43A and 43B of PMLA, 2002
• Articles 21, 22(1), and 22(5) of the Constitution of India

Issues of the Case

Core Issue: Whether failure to inform the appellant of the ‘grounds of arrest’ in writing renders the arrest and remand order illegal under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution?

Subsidiary Issues:

• Whether the ratio in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India applies?
• Are Sections 19 of PMLA and 43A/43B of UAPA pari materia?

Contentions of the Appellant

• Copy of FIR not provided: Violates Articles 20, 21, and 22.
• Violation of Article 22: Grounds of arrest were not informed either orally or in writing at the time of arrest or prior to remand.
• Pankaj Bansal Applicable: Section 19(1) of PMLA is pari materia to Section 43B(1) of UAPA. As per Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Pankaj Bansal judgment has prospective application.

Submission on Behalf of Respondent

• Pankaj Bansal Not Applicable: Judgment was published after the remand order.
• No mandate under Articles 22(1) and 22(5): No written communication required.
• Compliance with Article 22(1): Right to consult legal practitioner upheld.
• Sections Not Pari Materia: Section 19 of PMLA differs from Sections 43A & 43B of UAPA.
• Chargesheet Filed: Any illegality/irregularity stands cured.

The Judgement

• Applicability of Pankaj Bansal: The court upheld its applicability and emphasized furnishing written grounds of arrest as mandatory.
• Two Reasons for Written Communication:
  1. To avoid disputes regarding oral communication.
  2. To enable legal consultation and prepare for bail.
• Sections are Pari Passu: No substantial difference between Section 19 of PMLA and Sections 43A/43B of UAPA.
• Golden Rule of Interpretation: Section 167 of CrPC applies to these provisions.
• Fundamental Right: Written communication of grounds is a constitutional and statutory mandate.
• Chargesheet Filing Doesn’t Cure Illegality: The filing does not validate the unconstitutional arrest and remand.
• Difference Between ‘Reasons’ and ‘Grounds’ of Arrest:
  • Reasons are general and formal (e.g. preventing further crime).
  • Grounds are case-specific and essential for defence and bail.

Precedents Referred

• Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala: Fundamental rights violations must be strictly dealt with.
• Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra: Written grounds in a language understood by the accused are mandatory under Article 22(5).
• Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India: Reinforced the need to provide written grounds of arrest.

Final Verdict

“On the basis of facts proved, arguments given and precedents cited the court held that the arrest of the appellant followed by remand order dated 4th October, 2023 and so also the impugned order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 13th October, 2023 are hereby declared to be invalid in the eyes of law and are quashed and set aside.”

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the constitutional principle that furnishing written grounds of arrest is a rule, not an exception. It distinguishes between general ‘reasons’ and case-specific ‘grounds’ of arrest, and affirms the need for strict adherence to constitutional safeguards protecting individual liberty.

End-Notes:

1. Supreme Court of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Judgement dated 15 May, 2024, available at: https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/prabir-purkayastha-v-state-nct-of-delhi-2024-insc-414-grounds-of-arrest-in-writing-fundamental-right-1535608 (Last visited on June 12, 2025)
2. Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002
3. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, §§ 43A, 43B.
4. Constitution of India, arts. 21, 22(1), 22(5).
5. Supra note 1
6. Constitution of India, art. 22.
7. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 50.
8. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC Online SC 1244
9. Section 43B(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967
10. Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC Online SC 1682
11. Supra note 1
12. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC Online SC 1244.
13. Constitution of India, Article 22(1).
14. Constitution of India, Article 22(5).
15. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 19.
16. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 19
17. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, §§ 43A & 43B
18. Supra note 3
19. Supreme Court of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Judgement dated 15 May, 2024, para 36, available at: https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/prabir-purkayastha-v-state-nct-of-delhi-2024-insc-414-grounds-of-arrest-in-writing-fundamental-right-1535608 (Last visited on June 12, 2025)
20. Ibid, para 37
21. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 167; UAPA, § 19; PMLA, §§ 43A, 43B.
22. Supra note 1
23. Ibid
24. Roy V. D. v. State of Kerala, (2000) SCC Online SC 556 (Decided Nov. 10, 2000).
25. Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 911.
26. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 427; AIR 1981 SC 728.