Criminal Procedure Code

Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)

2024 INSC 414

Facts

Prabir Purkayastha, founder of the NewsClick platform, was arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
He was arrested in connection with allegations concerning unlawful funding and activities said to affect national security.
The police prepared documents referring to reasons for arrest, but the detailed grounds relied upon were not effectively supplied to him before the remand proceedings.
The remand application was placed before the Magistrate at an early hour.
His chosen lawyer was not given a meaningful opportunity to participate before remand was granted.
A copy of the remand application was supplied only after the remand order.
He challenged both the arrest and remand as violations of Articles 21 and 22(1).

Whether the grounds of arrest under the UAPA must be communicated in writing.
Whether “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest” are the same.
Whether remand can cure an arrest made in violation of constitutional safeguards.

Article 22(1) requires every arrested person to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest.
“Reasons for arrest” are general statutory or administrative reasons explaining why custody is considered necessary.
“Grounds of arrest” are the specific facts and allegations forming the basis of that individual’s arrest.
Effective communication requires sufficient detail to permit the arrested person to:
understand the accusation;
consult a lawyer;
oppose remand;
and seek bail.
For special statutes such as PMLA and UAPA, the grounds must ordinarily be furnished in writing.
A remand order does not automatically validate an unconstitutional arrest.
The Magistrate must independently examine whether:
arrest requirements were satisfied;
grounds were properly communicated;
and legal representation was meaningfully available.
BNSS Section 47 requires communication of grounds of arrest, while Article 22(1) remains controlling. ()

The police argued that Purkayastha knew why he was arrested because:
the FIR existed;
searches had occurred;
and arrest documents referred generally to the case.
The Supreme Court rejected this as insufficient.
Knowledge of the broad subject of investigation is not the same as receiving the specific grounds on which personal liberty is being taken away.
The grounds mattered particularly because the UAPA imposes strict bail conditions.
Without the factual basis of arrest, the accused could not meaningfully demonstrate:
absence of a prima facie case;
factual error;
mistaken identity;
or lack of necessity.
Supplying the remand application after remand had already been granted deprived him of the opportunity to oppose custody effectively.
The Magistrate’s order could not cure the earlier violation because judicial remand must follow a lawful arrest.
The Court also criticised the failure to give the chosen counsel a genuine opportunity before remand.
Constitutional communication is not satisfied through:
secret paperwork;
vague oral statements;
or retrospective supply of documents.
Because the violation went to the foundation of custody, the subsequent filing of a charge-sheet did not retrospectively legalise the arrest.

The Supreme Court declared Purkayastha’s arrest and remand illegal.
It directed his release, subject to appropriate bail conditions because the charge-sheet had already been filed.
The judgment extended the written-grounds requirement to UAPA arrests and reinforced the Magistrate’s duty to test legality before authorising remand.