Why is it in the news?
- In the case of Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court (SC) has emphasized the necessity for probe agencies to furnish written grounds of arrest in cases falling under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
More about the news
- The court declared the arrest of Prabir Purkayastha, the founder-editor of Newsclick, invalid as the Delhi Police failed to disclose the reasons for arrest prior to taking him into custody.
- The SC’s observations in the case reaffirm the mandate established in the Pankaj Bansal v Union of India & Ors. judgement, asserting that accused individuals have the right to receive the grounds of arrest in writing. This requirement encompasses cases falling under the UAPA of 1967 as well.
- Additionally, the judgement previously stated that individuals accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002 must also be provided with the grounds of arrest.
- The communication of grounds of arrest or detention, as prescribed by Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Indian Constitution, is considered sacrosanct and inviolable under all circumstances.
| · Article 22(1) ensures that a person who is arrested is to be promptly informed of the reasons for their arrest, while Article 22(5) ensures that a person under detention is notified of the grounds for the detention order and afforded the opportunity to challenge it. |
| About UAPA of 1967
· The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 is designed to effectively prevent certain unlawful activities conducted by individuals and associations, particularly those related to terrorist activities. · Section 43B (1) of the Act specifically requires that any arresting officer informs the accused individual of the grounds for their arrest. |
