Declaring Arun Ferreira’s arrest illegal, the Bombay High Court has directed the State to pay him Rs 2 lakh, finding that Gadchiroli police officers picked up the activist outside Nagpur Central Prison on the day of his release after acquittal in September 2011 without following due process of law.
Nagpur: Reminding the State Police of its own motto, Sadrakshnaya Khalanighrahanaya, to protect the good and punish the evil, the Bombay High Court has declared the September 2011 arrest of activist Arun Thomas Ferreira illegal and in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21, and has directed the State of Maharashtra to pay him compensation of Rs 2 lakh within eight weeks [Arun Thomas Ferreira v. State of Maharashtra and Others].
The criminal writ petition, filed in 2012, was partly allowed by a Division Bench of the Nagpur Bench comprising Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke and Justice Raj D. Wakode. The judgment, authored by Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke, was reserved on September 28, 2026 and pronounced on October 27, 2026.
No grounds on record, no reason for secrecy
The Bench found nothing on record to show that the police told Ferreira’s family or his advocates, who were standing at the spot, why he was being taken or on what grounds. It noted that his advocate had gone straight to Dhantoli Police Station to lodge a complaint because the officers had not disclosed their identity.
“Admittedly, the respondents were having ample time to furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused when petitioner came out from the jail; his relatives, mother and brother were also present but nothing is on record in the form of entry in the station diary or general diary showing that mother and brother of the petitioner were informed as to his involvement in the crime or the purpose for what he was detained.”
The secrecy justification offered for the unnumbered vehicle fared no better. The Court observed that even if Ferreira was involved in the crime, he was neither taken to any Naxal-related activity nor moved in that vehicle for any purpose that required secrecy. It held that Respondent No. 2, the Superintendent of Police, Gadchiroli, and Respondent No. 12, Police Sub-Inspector Satish Hindurao Shinde of the Local Crime Branch, Gadchiroli, had acted beyond their limits and arrested him without due process.
“When the police persons are the violator of the law whose primary responsibility is to protect the law, the punishment for such violation has to be proportionately stringent so as to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in society.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rudul Sah, the Bench held that monetary compensation was the appropriate remedy for the violation of fundamental rights by officials acting on behalf of the State.
Released after eight acquittals, picked up at the gate
Ferreira was released from Nagpur Central Prison on September 27, 2011, after being acquitted in eight criminal cases. According to his petition, as he stepped out of the prison, with his mother, his brother and his advocates waiting to receive him, officers in civilian clothes picked him up and drove him away in a vehicle without a number plate. He described the episode as an abduction and sought a declaration that the arrest was illegal.
The police contended that he was arrested in a case relating to Naxal activity, that secrecy had to be maintained, and that all mandatory requirements, including informing him of the grounds of arrest, had been met. The respondents included the Superintendent of Police, Gadchiroli, officers of Purada Police Station, the Nagpur Central Prison authorities, and officers of Dhantoli Police Station, Nagpur.
The directions
- The State of Maharashtra shall pay Rs 2,00,000 to the petitioner within eight weeks, by depositing the amount in the High Court.
- If dissatisfied with the amount, Ferreira is at liberty to file a civil suit for compensation before the appropriate court.
- The prayer for directions to Dhantoli Police Station to enquire into the complaint filed by Advocate Surendra Gadling was rejected.
What the judgment signals
The ruling reaffirms that the duty to inform an arrested person, and those present on his behalf, of the grounds of arrest is not a formality that can be waived by invoking secrecy. Where the record holds no diary entry and no communication to family or counsel, an arrest made at the prison gate becomes indefensible, whatever the nature of the case under investigation.
It also applies the public law remedy of compensation for breach of Article 21, while leaving the door open to a civil suit for a larger claim. The 15-year gap between the arrest and the verdict shows how long such claims can take, but the Court’s message to police officers is that unlawful arrests will carry a price for the State.
Case Title: Arun Thomas Ferreira v. State of Maharashtra and Others [Criminal Writ Petition No. 467 of 2012]
Bench: Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke and Justice Raj D. Wakode, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
Date of Judgment: October 27, 2026 (reserved on September 28, 2026)
Appearances: Advocates Pradip B. Mandhyan and Aakash Sorde for the petitioner; Additional Public Prosecutor M.J. Khan for the State