Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

“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