Introduction
In a landmark decision reinforcing procedural safeguards under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the Supreme Court of India has quashed the arrest and remand of three individuals booked under UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), ruling that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest violates Section 43B of the UAPA.
The Court clarified that merely explaining the grounds of arrest orally or through the remand court’s explanation does not fulfill the statutory and constitutional mandate of furnishing the grounds in writing to the arrested person.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the arrest of three individuals by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for alleged involvement in unlawful activities and conspiracy against the State.
The accused were booked under:
- Sections 13 and 18 of the UAPA, and
- Sections 153A, 153B, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), dealing with promoting enmity, criminal conspiracy, and common intention.
According to the NIA, one of the petitioners, allegedly a leader of the banned Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT) organization, had used his YouTube channel “Dr. Hameed Hussain Talks” to incite young followers to subvert the democratic government and establish an Islamic regime in India.
Madras High Court’s Decision
The Madras High Court had earlier upheld the validity of the arrest and remand, ruling that the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest under Section 43B of the UAPA was satisfied when:
- The remand requisition report, containing the grounds of arrest, was served on the accused, and
- The magistrate explained the reasons for arrest during the remand proceedings.
Dissatisfied, the accused approached the Supreme Court, asserting that they had not received any written grounds of arrest, either at the time of arrest or thereafter.
Key Legal Issue
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
Whether the explanation of arrest grounds by the remand court can substitute the mandatory requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest under Section 43B of the UAPA?
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Vipul M. Pancholi emphatically rejected the Madras High Court’s reasoning and ruled in favor of the appellants.
1. Mandatory Compliance Under Section 43B
Section 43B(1) of the UAPA mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing, aligning with the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
The Court held that written communication is an indispensable procedural safeguard and cannot be replaced by oral explanations or judicial inferences.
“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 observed.
2. Remand Explanation Not Equivalent to Furnishing Grounds
The Court made it clear that an explanation by the magistrate at the time of remand or a reference in the remand order cannot be treated as compliance. The law requires personal service of written grounds on the accused at or immediately after arrest.
3. Reliance on Previous Judgments
The Bench relied heavily on its precedents, including:
- Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023)
- Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024)
- Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2024)
In these judgments, the Court had consistently emphasized that providing written grounds of arrest is a mandatory and non-derogable safeguard. Any deviation renders the arrest illegal and unconstitutional.
4. Non-Compliance Invalidates Arrest and Remand
The Court noted that in the present case, there was no dispute on facts—the grounds of arrest were never furnished in writing to the appellants or their co-accused. The NIA had contended that:
- The remand court explained the grounds, and
- A copy containing the grounds was given to the counsel later.
However, the Court dismissed this argument, stating that procedural convenience cannot override statutory command.
Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court held that the arrests and subsequent remand orders were invalid due to non-compliance with Section 43B of the UAPA.
“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 judgment stated.
Accordingly:
- The Madras High Court’s judgment was set aside.
- The orders of arrest and remand were quashed.
- However, the Court granted liberty to the NIA and the State to take recourse to law and re-arrest the appellants if a proper case is made out.
Broader Legal Context
1. Strengthening Procedural Fairness
The judgment reinforces the constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21 and the procedural safeguards under Article 22(1). Furnishing written grounds ensures transparency, enables the accused to prepare an effective defense, and prevents arbitrary arrests under stringent anti-terror laws.
2. Watali Case Clarification
The Court also took the opportunity to note that its 2018 ruling in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, often cited to justify denial of bail under UAPA, should not be treated as an unqualified precedent for refusing bail to long-term undertrials. This observation signals the Court’s commitment to balancing national security with human rights.
3. Implications for Investigating Agencies
The judgment sends a clear message to enforcement agencies, including the NIA, that strict compliance with statutory mandates is non-negotiable, even in UAPA cases. Failure to provide written arrest grounds can render the entire arrest and remand process void.
Significance of the Judgment
1. Constitutional Safeguards Reinforced
The Court’s decision strengthens due process rights, ensuring that individual liberty is not compromised even under special statutes like the UAPA.
2. Judicial Oversight Enhanced
By rejecting the remand court’s explanation as sufficient, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the autonomous responsibility of arresting officers to comply with statutory duties.
3. Prevents Misuse of UAPA
Given widespread concerns about misuse of UAPA for prolonged detentions, this ruling provides a vital procedural check against arbitrary arrests.
4. A Step Toward Accountability
The judgment ensures greater accountability of investigating agencies and may influence future legislative or procedural reforms in handling terrorism-related investigations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ahmed Mansoor and Others v. The State (2025) is a watershed moment in UAPA jurisprudence. It underscores that statutory compliance cannot be diluted in the name of national security. The ruling reinforces that furnishing written grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a constitutional right integral to personal liberty and fair procedure.
By declaring that remand court explanations cannot substitute written communication, the apex court has not only quashed an unlawful arrest but also reaffirmed the primacy of due process—a cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy.
Also Read
Supreme Court Stays Bombay High Court Order Restricting Kirloskar Trademark Licensing
Can Multi-State Cooperative Societies Submit Resolution Plans Under IBC? Supreme Court To Consider
