Question

Analyse Prabir Purkayastha (2024) and how it changes the law of remand/grounds of arrest.

Hint:

After 2024: No written grounds → Arrest illegal → No remand → Release mandatory. This rule applies most strongly to UAPA and special offences.

Answer 1

The Supreme Court’s decision in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024) is a watershed judgment in the criminal procedure landscape. It fundamentally reshapes the requirements for a valid arrest and remand, especially under stringent statutes like UAPA.
1. Core Holding: Written Grounds of Arrest Are Mandatory The Court held that: \[ Grounds of arrest must be supplied in writing, not merely orally communicated. \] Why written?

Ensures the arrested person understands the exact allegations.
Prevents misuse of vague or shifting oral reasons.
Enables the arrested person to meaningfully exercise legal rights.
This is a major expansion of Article 22(1) and reinforces procedural due process.
2. Remand Depends on a Valid Arrest The Court declared: \[ If the arrest is illegal, the Magistrate cannot order remand. \] Previously, courts sometimes held that remand “cures” defects in arrest procedure. Prabir Purkayastha overrules this approach.
The magistrate must:

verify the legality of arrest,
check if grounds were written and given,
independently apply judicial mind.
Without this, remand violates Article 21.
3. Strengthening Judicial Scrutiny in Special Statutes (UAPA)
Given UAPA’s stringent bail provisions (“terrorism” threshold, s.43D), the Court held that:
“Higher the power to curtail liberty, greater the responsibility to ensure procedural safeguards.”
Thus, UAPA arrests now require:

written grounds,
clear nexus to the offence,
strict judicial oversight at the remand stage.
4. Expanded Meaning of “Communication” under Article 22(1)
Earlier decisions allowed oral communication.
Now, the Court holds: \[ Communication = supply of written grounds in a language understood by the accused. \] This strengthens the constitutional protection against arbitrary arrest.
5. Impact on Police Powers
Police must now:

draft clear written grounds,
supply them at the time of arrest,
produce them before the magistrate.
This prevents routine or mechanical arrests, particularly under political or sensitive statutes.
6. Impact on Future Litigation
The ruling will have major consequences:

UAPA, PMLA, NDPS cases can be challenged on procedural grounds.
Habeas corpus petitions become stronger where grounds were not supplied.
Magistrates face increased duty to supervise arrests.

Conclusion: \[ \boxed{Prabir Purkayastha revolutionises arrest jurisprudence, making written grounds mandatory and invalidating remand based on illegal arrests.} \]