Compliance Affidavits Are Nothing But Admission of Disobedience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Puts Chief Secretaries and DGPs in Dock Over Arnesh Kumar Violations

“The Contempt Is Made Out Against Chief Secretaries and the Director Generals of Police” —  Punjab and Haryana High Court passed a sharp and reportable order calling out repeated non-compliance of the Supreme Court’s binding directions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (02.07.2014).

Justice Sudeepthi Sharma, exercising powers under Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, expressed serious concern that despite the Supreme Court’s decade-old mandate to prevent unnecessary arrests, contempt petitions continue to be filed against the States of Punjab and Haryana.

In a significant move, the Court issued show cause notices to the Chief Secretaries and Director Generals of Police of both States, observing that institutional failure to enforce the safeguards cannot be brushed aside by merely charge-sheeting subordinate officers.

Supreme Court’s Mandate Against Mechanical Arrests

The contempt petition alleged violation of the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar, where the Supreme Court had categorically directed that police officers must not automatically arrest accused persons in offences punishable up to seven years, including under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Supreme Court had mandated strict adherence to Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring police officers to satisfy the necessity of arrest, issue notice of appearance, prepare a checklist before arrest, and furnish reasons to the Magistrate.

The Magistrate was also directed not to authorize detention casually or mechanically. Importantly, the Supreme Court ordered that copies of the judgment be forwarded to Chief Secretaries and Director Generals of Police of all States to ensure systemic compliance.

It was further warned that failure to comply would expose officers to departmental action and contempt proceedings before the High Court.

“Still the Contempt Petitions Are Filed” — High Court Flags Persistent Violations

Justice Sharma noted that even after more than eleven years of the Supreme Court’s judgment, contempt petitions alleging non-compliance are frequently being filed.

Though the present case was against the State of Haryana, the Court observed that similar contempts are routinely filed against the State of Punjab as well. Recognizing the larger public importance of the issue, the Court impleaded the State of Punjab in the present proceedings.

The Court observed that the compliance affidavits filed by the States were “rather admission of disobedience.” A recurring paragraph in such affidavits stating that erring officers had been charge-sheeted was found insufficient.

“The charge sheet issued to the police officials would not condone the contempt made by them,” the Court remarked.

Accountability Beyond Individual Officers

In one of the most striking observations, the Court held that the contempt, if any, cannot be confined to individual police officers. The responsibility to ensure compliance with Supreme Court directions lies with the highest administrative and police authorities to whom the judgment was forwarded.

The Court observed that repeated violations demonstrate that effective systemic steps have not been taken by the States. It concluded that prima facie, contempt is made out against the Chief Secretaries and the Director Generals of Police of both States, who were entrusted with ensuring compliance of the Supreme Court’s mandate.

Directions Issued

The Additional Chief Secretaries and Director Generals of Police of Punjab and Haryana have been directed to file comprehensive affidavits detailing the measures taken to implement the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar.

Further, show cause notices have been issued to the Chief Secretaries and Director Generals of Police of both States to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for failure to ensure compliance.

The matter has been listed for 19.03.2026.

Liberty Under Article 21 Cannot Be Reduced to Formality

This order marks a decisive assertion of judicial oversight over executive inaction. By calling upon the highest administrative authorities to answer for repeated violations, the High Court has underscored that Supreme Court directions under Article 141 are binding and cannot be diluted through mechanical compliance affidavits.

The ruling strengthens the safeguards against arbitrary arrest and reinforces that personal liberty under Article 21 is not negotiable.

The message from the Bench is clear — institutional apathy in implementing judicial mandates will invite constitutional consequences at the highest level.

Date of Decision: 18/02/2026