Latest revision as of 18:38, 8 June 2025

[edit] Arrest of women

[edit] Curbs on arrest of women after sunset only ‘directory’, not mandatory: HC

Sureshkumar k, February 9, 2025: The Times of India

Chennai : Madras HC has clarified that legal restrictions prohibiting the arrest of a woman after sunset and before sunrise are only directory, and not mandatory, in nature.
“There is a laudable reason for incorporating such a provision. It is meant to serve as a note of caution to the officers effecting the arrest of women. While failure to adhere to the statutory requirement may not lead to the arrest being declared illegal, the officer concerned may have to offer an explanation for the inability to comply with the procedure,” a division bench of Justice G R Swaminathan and Justice M Jothiraman said.


The statutory provision is in two parts. It forbids the arrest of women between sunset and sunrise, except in exceptional situations. Even in exceptional situations, prior permission of the jurisdictional magistrate must be obtained. Since the provision does not offer any clue as to what would constitute an exceptional situation, a single judge of the court in “Salma vs the State” framed guidelines governing the arrest of women, the court said. 
“We are afraid the guidelines merely reiterate the statutory language. They do not appear to shed clear light on the problem that may be faced by the arresting officers tasked with discharging public duty,” the judges said. “We direct the police department to issue further guidelines clarifying what would constitute exceptional situations. Even the state legislature can consider bringing a local amendment to Section 43 of BNS on the lines suggested by Law Commission of India in its 154th report,” it added.


The court then set aside a single judge order directing disciplinary action against Anitha, inspector of police, and Krishnaveni, head constable, for arresting a woman after sunset. The court, however, refused to set aside the order passed against Deepa, sub-inspector of police, for unfair disclosure of facts before the court.

[edit] Grounds of arrest to be given to accused

[edit] Arrest illegal if grounds not given to accused: SC

AmitAnand Choudhary,February 12, 2025: The Times of India

New Delhi : Supreme Court has ruled that investigating agencies are duty-bound to inform grounds of arrest to the accused while taking them into custody and failure to comply with it would render the arrest illegal. It said the requirement to inform the grounds of arrest is not a “formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement”.


A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N K Singh quashed an arrest made by Gurgaon police, saying the accused had not been informed of the grounds of his arrest. 


Though the apex court refrained from passing an order on the mode of communication of grounds of arrest, it said it would be better if it was communicated in writing as the burden would be on the police to prove that the grounds of arrest were communicated.


In a concurring but separate order, Justice Singh said the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person.

[edit] Person arrested on warrant need not be given reason separately: SC

May 27, 2025: The Times of India

New Delhi : Supreme Court has said that when a person is arrested pursuant to a warrant, obligation to separately communicate the grounds of arrest is not needed, as the warrant itself constitutes the grounds for the arrest to be supplied to the arrestee.


“If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest,” a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said. “If he is arrested without a warrant, he must be told why he has been arrested. If he is arrested for committing an offence, he must be told that he has committed a certain offence for which he would be placed on trial. In order to inform him that he has committed a certain offence, he must be told of the acts done by him which amounts to the offence. He must be informed of the precise acts done by him for which he would be tried; informing him merely of the law applicable to such acts would not be enough,” the bench said.