The Supreme Court on Monday said constitutional safeguards cannot be set aside because a person is accused of a serious offence. It held that the grounds of arrest must be given to an arrested person in writing and in a language they understand, including in cases involving special laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar also said that disciplinary action should be initiated against a police officer who fails to provide the grounds of arrest in writing. The court said the requirement flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution and applies to arrests under all laws.

The court was hearing a plea filed by Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol, the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD)-affiliated in-charge of the Mullanpur Dakha constituency in Punjab.

The top court held that an arrest becomes illegal when the grounds of arrest are not furnished in writing as required under Article 22(1). The grounds must be communicated in a manner and language that the arrested person can understand. The judgment said the requirement is not limited to arrests under ordinary criminal laws. The constitutional safeguard applies without exception, including to offences under special statutes.

The court also laid down the procedure to be followed if an arrest is declared illegal because the grounds were not supplied.

If the investigating agency wants to arrest the person again, it must first provide the grounds of arrest in writing and approach the concerned Magistrate for permission. The application must explain why the grounds were not provided during the original arrest and must carry the endorsement of the immediate superior authority.

The court said the same investigating officer should not be left with the sole discretion to re-arrest a person after violating the constitutional safeguard. The Magistrate must consider the request and decide whether re-arrest is justified, the news report said.

The apex court has also prescribed action at the administrative level against officers who fail to follow the constitutional requirement.

The superior police authority must assign the further investigation to another officer and order a departmental inquiry against the officer responsible for the violation. If the inquiry finds adverse conduct, departmental action should follow, with the outcome recorded in the officer's service book.

The court has directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to the Directors General of Police of all states and Union Territories.

The court was hearing a plea filed by Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol. He had been arrested in a case involving allegations of sexual assault of a minor. The local Magistrate had declared his arrest illegal and ordered his release after finding that written grounds of arrest had not been supplied to him. The Punjab and Haryana High Court later stayed that order, following which Deol approached the Supreme Court, the news report said.

The apex court upheld the importance of the constitutional safeguard and said the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is linked to a person's ability to challenge the arrest, seek legal assistance and apply for bail.

"We must remind ourselves that constitutional provisions can't be interpreted in a vacuum. Constitution is based on certain principles much above the statutory threshold," the Bench said.

The court said that in cases where written grounds cannot be provided immediately, the police may communicate the grounds orally at the time of arrest in limited circumstances.

However, the written grounds must subsequently be supplied within a reasonable time and, in any event, at least two hours before the arrested person is produced before a Magistrate for remand. The remand papers must also contain the grounds of arrest.

If these requirements are not followed, the arrest and subsequent remand can be rendered illegal, and the person is entitled to be released.