Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

“Even a Criminal is Entitled to Dignity” : Supreme Court Slams Haryana Police for Violating Arnesh Kumar Guidelines; Orders Nationwide Circulation of Safeguards Against Illegal Arrests

03 April 2025 1:39 PM

By: sayum


“A Common Man May Exceed Limits, but Not the Police” — Supreme Court Deplores Haryana Police for High-Handedness and Mechanical Arrests. Supreme Court, in Vijay Pal Yadav vs. Mamta Singh & Others, sternly reminded the Haryana Police and law enforcement agencies across India that “even a criminal, under the law of our land, enjoys certain safeguards in order to ensure protection of his person and dignity.” The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra censured the Haryana Police for arresting the petitioner in blatant disregard of the landmark guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar.

The Court found prima facie that the petitioner was arrested and physically assaulted by the police without following mandatory procedures under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) CrPC. The Court commented, “We find that there appears to be evident high-handedness on the part of the police in this case.”

Supreme Court: “Checklist under Section 41 CrPC mechanically filled defeats judicial oversight”

The Court, scrutinizing the checklist supposedly prepared by the police before arrest, observed: “Perusal of the same prima facie does not inspire confidence. Rather, it appears that only as a formality, the same has been submitted.” The Court further stressed, “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 Bench went a step further by directing not only the Haryana police but also all Judicial Magistrates to stop mechanically accepting such checklists without due scrutiny. The Court underlined that the statutory safeguard under Section 41 CrPC is not an empty formality but a protection of personal liberty.

Director General of Police, Haryana Personally Cautioned — Zero Tolerance Mandated

While refraining from interfering in the pending criminal case, the Court issued a stern warning to Haryana Police. It categorically held, “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 Court emphasized the larger public interest involved, stating, “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.”

Court Directs Nationwide Circulation of Safeguards to DGPs and Delhi Police Commissioner

The Supreme Court, invoking its constitutional responsibility to uphold human dignity, ordered that the judgment along with its previous ruling in Somnath vs. State of Maharashtra be circulated to all DGPs and the Delhi Police Commissioner.

 

Quoting Somnath, the Court reiterated, “There will be a general direction to the police forces in all States and Union Territories as also all agencies endowed with the power of arrest and custody to scrupulously adhere to all Constitutional and statutory safeguards.”

In closing, the Court warned that any future recurrence will invite severe consequences, stating, “We are confident that the Director General of Police has been appropriately sensitized... failing which, a very strict view shall be taken, and coercive measures shall also follow against the errant personnel.”

Date of Decision: 26.03.2025

Latest Legal News