High Courts Aren't Subordinate-SC Judgments Must Be Respected- Supreme Court

Despite the fact that the High Courts are independent of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court stated that its decisions must be treated with "due regard."

The panel of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath noted that Article 141 of the Indian Constitution states that all parties are bound by the decisions of this Court.

Because the statutory notice required by Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not given to some of the accused in this case, the Sessions Court denied the Police's request for remand. The Telangana High Court noted the following in its decision admitting revision petitions submitted by the State: Since police personnel and magistrates have the authority to make arrests and impose remands, the Supreme Court's parental guidance in Arnesh Kumar's case is not a sword of Damocles.

While granting the accused's appeal, the Apex Court panel stated that the High Court's views are completely unjustified and unacceptable.

"Although it is frequently stated that the High Court should not be considered a lower court than the Supreme Court. However, it is expected that the High Court will treat decisions of this Court, which are obligatory on all parties under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, with the respect that they deserve "The bench looked about.

The court further stated that the observations in the HC judgement do not align with those in the Arnesh Kumar case.

The Supreme Court gave the following instructions in the case of Arnesh Kumar.

A case under Section 498-A of the IPC must be recorded before a police officer is ordered to make an arrest. Instead, police officers must determine whether an arrest is necessary based on the criteria outlined above and flowing from Section 41 of the Cr.PC.

To comply with Section 41(1)(b)(ii), a check list comprising the relevant subclauses shall be made available to all police personnel;

When bringing the accused before the magistrate for further detention, the police officer must present the properly completed check list and provide the justifications and evidence for the arrest.

While approving the accused's custody, the magistrate must read the police officer's report submitted in accordance with the aforementioned requirements, and only after noting satisfaction would the magistrate approve the accused's detention;

Within two weeks of the date the case was instituted, the decision not to arrest an accused must be sent to the magistrate with a copy to the magistrate; this deadline may be extended by the district's chief of police for reasons that must be documented in writing;

Within two weeks of the case's institution, the accused must get notice of their presence under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code; this deadline may be extended by the district's superintendent of police, with justification to be provided in writing;

In addition to being subject to departmental repercussions for failing to follow the aforementioned instructions, the concerned police officers risk being penalised for contempt of court, which will be brought before the High Court with territorial jurisdiction.

Authorizing detention without providing the justifications specified by the relevant judicial magistrate will result in departmental action by the relevant High Court.

The aforementioned instructions shall apply to instances under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of the I.P.C. as well as cases where the offence is punishable by imprisonment for a time that may be less than seven years or that may extend to seven years, with or without fine.

Reading of Arnesh Kumar and Sections 41, 41A by Telangana HC

Nowhere in the impugned judgement, according to Justice Chillakur Sumalatha of the Telangana High Court, is it stated that notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. must be given where the case falls under the purview of Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. According to the High Court, in order to use the arrest authority granted by Section 41(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the following requirements must be met:

First, the police officer must have cause to think that the accused has committed a crime that is punished by imprisonment for a term that may be less than or equal to seven years based on a complaint, piece of information, or reasonable suspicion.

The second requirement to be met is that the police officer must be persuaded that the person's arrest is required to stop them from committing any additional crimes, to allow for a thorough investigation, to stop them from tampering with the evidence, to stop them from making any inducements, threats, or promises to anyone who knows the details of the case, or on other grounds.

It was noted that if any of the aforementioned requirements listed under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) are met, combined with the requirements listed under Section 41(1)(b)(i), the police officer would be authorised under Section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C. to arrest the offender. The judgement further stated that the Trial Court made a mistake by "misreading and misconstruing" the ruling in Arnesh Kumar's case.

Ramachandra Barathi @ Sathish Sharma V.K.  vs  State of Telangana