Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court has quashed the arrest and remand of three individuals booked for the offences of unlawful activities and conspiracy under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the offences of criminal conspiracy, promotion of communal harmony, etc. under the Indian Penal Code, holding that the mandatory requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest was not complied with.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court which held that the mandate under Section 43B of the UAPA is fulfilled when the remand requisition report, containing the grounds of arrest is served on the accused.

“Suffice it is to state that the explanation by the Court before whom the arrestees are produced can never be an adequate compliance of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing an accused” the bench held, setting aside the Madras High Court's order that had upheld the arrest.

The Court held that an explanation given by the jurisdictional Court at the time of remand, followed by the remand order which indicates that the grounds of arrest were explained, would not be sufficient compliance of Section 43B of the UAPA.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by persons challenging their arrest by the National Investigation Agency. It was alleged that one of the petitioners was the leader of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT) organization and through his YouTube Channel “Dr Hameed Hussain Talks”, he had incited young Islamists to secretly implement Islamic Rule to overthrow the democratic government in India.

The offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 120B, and 34 of the IPC and Sections 13 and 18 of the UAPA were invoked against the accused. They challenged the arrest and remand by arguing the grounds of arrest were not provided to them in writing, either at the time of arrest or thereafter.

The Supreme Court noted that, on facts, there is no dispute that the grounds of arrest were not furnished, either to the appellants or to the persons arrested with them. The only contention on behalf of the NIA was that the grounds of arrest was duly explained by the Court at the time of remand, followed by furnishing of a copy of the same containing the grounds of arrest to the counsel who appeared with them.

Rejecting the Agency's argument, the bench relied on its previous rulings in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, which emphasized that providing written grounds of arrest is a mandatory safeguard.

"In such view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the present appeal deserves to succeed only on the ground that the mandate of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing the appellants has not been complied with," the bench observed.

However, while setting aside the order passed by the High Court and consequently setting aside the order of arrest and remand, the Court granted liberty to the respondents to take recourse to law, to arrest, if a case is made out.

Case : Ahmed Mansoor and others v. The State

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1026

Click here to read the judgment