Supreme Court Justice Gavai questioned Delhi High Court’s reasoning in bail and remand orders during a hearing on April 30.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Recently, Justice BR Gavai of the Supreme Court expressed his concern over the questionable reasoning provided by the Delhi High Court in bail and remand orders. During a hearing on April 30, Justice Gavai, along with Justice Sandeep Mehta, presided over a plea filed by NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha, who challenged his arrest and remand by the Delhi Police under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
During the proceedings, Justice Gavai observed that the remand order seemed to have been passed without informing Purkayastha’s counsel. He addressed Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and remarked-
“Are you glad that the High Court judge in Delhi is giving tough competition to judges from Gujarat? I’ve noticed at least three judgments from there. And similar judges can be found in all courts, including here.”
Justice Mehta joined the conversation, emphasizing that such instances occur in every court. ASG Raju, while refraining from commenting on the apex court, acknowledged that some judges are known to pass favorable orders only after lunch.
ALSO READ: Justice BR Gavai Says: ‘Courts Cannot Sit with Folded Hands When Executive Fails’
The discussion referred to a Delhi High Court ruling that upheld Purkayastha’s arrest and remand. In a detailed judgment, a single-judge panel stated that it appeared that the grounds of arrest were conveyed to Purkayastha and his associate Chakraborty shortly after the arrest. During the hearing, ASG Raju supported the Delhi High Court’s order, asserting that Purkayastha was orally informed about the reasons for his detention at the time of his arrest.
However, Justice Gavai pointed out that merely informing the accused orally was not sufficient in light of the Pankaj Bansal judgment.
He stated-
“But that’s not sufficient, according to the argument. The High Court was obligated to follow the Pankaj Bansal ruling.”
Justice Mehta further mentioned that the Pankaj Bansal judgment was delivered before Purkayastha’s arrest.
The Pankaj Bansal verdict by the Supreme Court clarified that individuals arrested in connection with cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) have the constitutional and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of their arrest. The Court emphasized that a mere reading of the grounds of arrest would not suffice as compliance with the requirements under Article 22(1) (protection against arrest and detention) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the PMLA.
Section 19(1) of the PMLA–
If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.
ALSO READ: Justice BR Gavai: “My Elevation to Supreme Court Accelerated to Ensure Dalit Representation”
Following the discussions, the Court reserved its judgment in Purkayastha’s case, indicating that a decision would be reached at a later date.
