May 174 min read

The Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Supreme Court Upholds Fundamental Rights in Prabir Purkayastha Case

Updated: Jul 9

Summary of the Judgment

Case Name: Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Date: 15th May 2024
Judges: Honorable Justice B.R. Gavai, Honorable Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocates: For Appellant: Kapil Sibal , For Respondent: Suryaprakash V. Raju
Acts and Sections: Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 22C of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) Sections 153A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India
Cited Judgements: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India
Original Judgment

Introduction

In a landmark ruling on 15th May 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgement in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), addressing critical issues of constitutional rights and procedural fairness in the context of arrests under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). This case has garnered substantial attention due to its implications for the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly in relation to the communication of arrest grounds and the due process of law.

The analysis highlights the critical aspects of the case, the arguments presented by both sides, and the Court's interpretation of the constitutional and statutory mandates. The ruling not only reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in criminal proceedings but also underscores the judiciary's role in protecting the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.

Analysis of the Judgement

The Supreme Court of India, in its recent decision addressed the arrest and remand proceedings of Prabir Purkayastha, a director at M/s. PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd. The crux of the judgement revolves around the procedural irregularities and constitutional violations concerning his arrest under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

Context and Background

The appellant, Prabir Purkayastha, was implicated in FIR No. 224/2023, filed by the Special Cell of Delhi Police on 17th August 2023, alleging offences under the UAPA and the IPC. Extensive raids were conducted at his residential and official premises, leading to the seizure of numerous documents and digital devices. He was subsequently arrested on 3rd October 2023.

The appellant challenged his arrest and the subsequent remand order dated 4th October 2023, issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts. His petition to the High Court of Delhi was dismissed, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Key Issues

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant’s arrest and remand were conducted in accordance with the legal and constitutional mandates. Specifically, the focus was on whether the grounds of arrest were adequately communicated to the appellant, as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and relevant sections of the UAPA and the CrPC.

Arguments by the Appellant

Representing the appellant, Shri Kapil Sibal advanced several arguments highlighting procedural lapses and constitutional violations:

Violation of Constitutional Rights: The appellant’s arrest was in gross violation of Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India. The arrest memo did not specify the grounds of arrest, which is a fundamental requirement.
Deficiency in FIR: The FIR No. 224/2023 was alleged to be based on conjectures and did not provide substantive grounds for arrest. The appellant argued that the FIR was a reiteration of previous allegations already addressed in FIR No. 116/2020.
Improper Remand Procedure: The appellant was presented before the remand judge early in the morning without his chosen legal counsel. Instead, a remand advocate not appointed by the appellant was present, undermining his right to a fair hearing.
Non-Communication of Grounds: The grounds of arrest were not communicated to the appellant or his counsel before the remand order was passed. This failure was a direct violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) and the statutory requirement under Section 43B of the UAPA.

Arguments by the Respondent

Shri Suryaprakash V. Raju, learned ASG, defending the State, countered with the following points:

Prospective Application of Judgement: The respondent argued that the judgement in Pankaj Bansal, which mandates written communication of arrest grounds, should apply prospectively. Since the appellant was remanded on 4th October 2023, before the judgement was publicised, compliance could not be expected.
Adequate Communication: The ASG contended that the grounds of arrest were orally communicated and later provided through WhatsApp. The delay in written communication did not invalidate the arrest.
Judicial Presumption: The ASG asserted the presumption of correctness in judicial acts, arguing that the remand judge’s noting of counsel’s presence and hearing should be accepted.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the procedural adherence and constitutional compliance in the appellant’s arrest and remand.

Constitutional Mandate: The Court reaffirmed the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) that any person arrested must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. This mandate is integral to ensuring the right to legal counsel and preparing a defense.

Pankaj Bansal Precedent: The judgement in Pankaj Bansal was pivotal. The Court held that the requirement to furnish written grounds of arrest is not merely procedural but fundamental to the right to personal liberty. This interpretation extends to the UAPA provisions, specifically Sections 43A and 43B, which are aligned with the constitutional safeguards.

Non-Compliance with Procedures: The Court noted significant lapses:

The arrest memo did not specify the grounds of arrest, undermining the appellant’s ability to challenge the remand effectively.
The appellant’s chosen legal counsel was not informed or present during the early morning remand proceedings, violating his right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice.
The grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing before the remand order, rendering the remand procedurally flawed.

Subsequent Insertion in Remand Order: The Court found indications of subsequent insertions in the remand order, suggesting procedural manipulation. This further invalidated the remand process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s arrest and remand were conducted in violation of constitutional and statutory mandates. The procedural irregularities and failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing rendered the remand order invalid.