The Supreme Court stayed an Allahabad High Court order directing Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to a man allegedly kept in illegal police custody for over three months. The interim order came during the State’s challenge against the compensation direction.
The Supreme Court on Monday put on hold an order of the Allahabad High Court that had directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation to a man who was allegedly kept in illegal custody by the state police for more than three months.
A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva passed an interim order while hearing an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government challenging the compensation direction issued by the High Court.
The Supreme Court issued notice in the matter and stayed the part of the High Court’s order that required the State to deposit the compensation amount.
The Court said,
“Issue notice. In the meanwhile, the impugned order in so far as it relates to imposition of cost of Rs 10 lakh on the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing,”
The stay, however, is limited to the monetary compensation aspect of the High Court ruling and the matter will be examined further by the Supreme Court.
Background Details
The case originated from a habeas corpus petition filed before the Allahabad High Court by Manoj Kumar, who challenged his arrest in a criminal case registered in Unnao and sought release from custody.
Kumar was arrested on January 27, 2026, in connection with an FIR that had been registered in September 2024. He argued that his detention was unconstitutional because the police did not provide him with written grounds of arrest, a safeguard required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
The recent Supreme Court judgments have repeatedly emphasised that an arrested person must be informed about the reasons for arrest so that they can effectively challenge the deprivation of their liberty.
Kumar contended that the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest made his detention illegal.
Allahabad High Court Declares Arrest Invalid: While examining the matter, the Allahabad High Court found serious procedural lapses in the manner of Kumar’s arrest. The Court observed that the arrest memo only contained details such as the crime number and did not mention the specific grounds on which Kumar was taken into custody.
Relying on earlier Supreme Court rulings, including Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Dr Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India, the High Court held that non-disclosure of the grounds of arrest violated constitutional protections.
The High Court concluded that since the mandatory requirement was not followed, the arrest itself was unlawful and the subsequent remand orders could not be sustained.
The High Court also directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) of Uttar Pradesh to explain why exemplary costs should not be imposed on the State for Kumar’s prolonged illegal confinement. The Court noted that Kumar had remained in custody for nearly three months due to the alleged failure of authorities to comply with constitutional safeguards.
However, the affidavit submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary did not directly address why compensation should not be imposed. Instead, it stated that reports had been sought from officials and that the matter was being examined.
The High Court expressed dissatisfaction over the response and questioned whether the senior official had properly considered the Court’s earlier directions.
The Court said,
“If this is the non-application of mind at the end of the highest authority of the Home Department i.e. Additional Chief Secretary (Home), we can well understand as to how the other authorities of the State are working!!!”
Release Ordered, Compensation Imposed: On April 29, the Allahabad High Court allowed Kumar’s habeas corpus petition, declared his arrest illegal and set aside the remand order. The Court directed that Kumar be released and also imposed Rs 10 lakh in costs on the Uttar Pradesh government.
The High Court held that Kumar’s fundamental right to personal liberty had been violated because authorities failed to follow the arrest safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court. According to the High Court, the compensation was necessary due to the prolonged deprivation of liberty caused by the illegal detention.
State Challenges Compensation Before Supreme Court
The Uttar Pradesh government approached the Supreme Court, challenging only the compensation portion of the High Court’s judgment. During the hearing, the State did not dispute the High Court’s observation that the grounds of arrest had not been supplied to Kumar. Instead, the government argued that the direction to pay ₹10 lakh required reconsideration.
The State’s counsel informed the Supreme Court that action had already been taken against the responsible officer.
The counsel told the Court,
“I am not shying away from the fact that grounds of arrest were not supplied. The only point I am canvassing is limited to the extent of the cost which is imposed. The concerned SHO was suspended by us,”
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court stayed the compensation order until further proceedings.
The matter raises significant questions regarding constitutional safeguards during arrest and the responsibility of law enforcement authorities to follow due process. The requirement to communicate grounds of arrest is considered a crucial protection against arbitrary detention. The case also highlights the issue of compensation as a remedy when state authorities violate fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court’s final decision will determine whether the compensation awarded by the High Court remains valid or whether the State’s challenge succeeds.
The Uttar Pradesh government was represented by Additional Advocate General and Senior Advocate Sharan Dev Thakur along with Standing Counsel Shaurya Sahay.