SC: Power of Police to Arrest duly governed by Law, can't be used as a Punitive Tool,

Read Judgment

 

 The Supreme Court, in the much-talked about matter of Alt News Co-Founder Mohammad Zubair, has reiterated that arrest is not meant to be and must not be used as a punitive tool by the authorities.

The three-judge bench of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Surya Kant was of the view that the above results in one of the gravest possible consequences emanating from criminal law: the loss of personal liberty.

Noting that any criminal proceeding almost inevitably involves the might of the state, with unlimited resources at its disposal, against a lone individual, the Court mentioned how Criminal Law is designed to grant protection from the same, citing Section 41 CrPC as an example. Individuals must not be punished solely on the basis of allegations, and without a fair trial. When the power to arrest is exercised without application of mind and without due regard to the law, it amounts to an abuse of power. The criminal law and its processes ought not to be instrumentalized as a tool of harassment", the Court remarked.

Essentially, the allegations against the petitioner pertained to the tweets which have been put out by him. The Court took into consideration multiple FIRs registered against him in multiple States and the on-going custody by the Delhi Police and found no reason or justification for the deprivation of the liberty.

 The Court commented that existence of the power of arrest must be distinguished from the exercise of the power of arrest. Noting that exercise of the power of arrest must be pursued sparingly, the Court said that there is absolutely no justification to keep the petitioner in continued custody any further and to subject him to an endless round of proceedings before diverse courts when the gravamen of the allegations in each of the said FIRs arises out of the tweets.

The Court, to this mentioned Arnab's case (ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI vs. UNION OF INDIA, 2020 Latest Caselaw 371 SC) wherein the Apex Court while providing due protection to the journalist, recorded that India’s freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal.

"The exercise of that fundamental right is not absolute and is answerable to the legal regime enacted with reference to the provisions of Article 19(2). But to allow a journalist to be subjected to multiple complaints and to the pursuit of remedies traversing multiple states and jurisdictions when faced with successive FIRs and complaints bearing the same foundation has a stifling effect on the exercise of that freedom. This will effectively destroy the freedom of the citizen to know of the affairs of governance in the nation and the right of the journalist to ensure an informed society. Our decisions hold that the right of a journalist under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than the right of the citizen to speak and express. But we must as a society never forget that one cannot exist without the other. Free citizens cannot exist when the news media is chained to adhere to one position.”

 

In the said judgement, role of courts in providing protection to press has been dicussed to some length. The judgement authored by Justice Chandrachud read to this regard:

"Courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum – the need to ensure the proper enforcement of criminal law on the one hand and the need, on the other, of ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment."

Our courts must ensure that they continue to remain the first line of defense against the deprivation of the liberty of citizens. Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many, it said.

 

The Court also accepted the alternate prayer of the petitioner with regard to quashing of the multiple FIRs citing the overlap in them as it opined that they all emanate from the tweets of the petitioner therefore there is need for a consolidated, as opposed to piece-meal investigation by a diverse set of law enforcement agencies.

It thus directed that all the FIRs which have been registered against the petitioner including the FIRs which have been noted above arising out of the Petitioner’s tweets should be transferred for investigation to the Special Cell of the Delhi Police.

Noting that if it doesn't do so, he would be required to hire multiple advocates across districts, file multiple applications for bail, travel to multiple districts spanning two states for the purposes of investigation, and defend himself before multiple courts, all with respect to substantially the same alleged cause of action, the Court commented that the petitioner "is trapped in a vicious cycle of the criminal process where the process has itself become the punishment."

"Police officers are vested with the power to arrest individuals at various stages of the criminal justice process, including during the course of investigation. However, this power is not unbridled. In terms of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, the police officer in question must be satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent the person sought to be arrested from committing any further offence, for proper investigation of the offence, to prevent the arrestee from tampering with or destroying evidence, to prevent them from influencing or intimidating potential witnesses, or when it is not possible to ensure their presence in court without arresting them."

 At this juncture, the Court mentioned Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & ANR., 2014 Latest Caselaw 427 SC which contains discusses power of police.

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure