Supreme Court Friday pointed to five “evils” associated with the ban on liquor NEW DELHI: Holding that fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution cannot be interpreted in a restrictive manner, Supreme Court on Monday held that a person’s personal liberty cannot be invaded except in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution, even if accused of a grave offence and anti-social activities, reports Amit Anand Choudhary.Elucidating Article 22 of the Constitution, which offers protection against arrest and detention in certain cases, a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar said a person must be provided with the grounds of arrest by the probe agency at the time of arrest in writing and its language understandable to the accused. SC said this is applicable in all cases including under special laws – such as PMLA and UAPA – regardless of the nature and gravity of offence.’Court nod required for re-arrest when flouting Article 22’Going a step further, the bench said that if a person’s arrest is declared illegal for non-compliance with Article 22, then he or she cannot be re-arrested in the same case without approval from a senior police officer and nod from the court concerned.”We need to remind ourselves that Constitution or a constitutional provision cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. Interpretation of Constitution cannot also be left to imponderables in the form of ifs and buts. Constitution is based on certain basic principles, much above the statutory threshold. Therefore, violation of Constitution or a constitutional provision cannot be countenanced. It has to be dealt with strictly. It is not dependent on the nature or gravity of the offence, encompassing within its sweep all offences. It cannot be interpreted in a restrictive manner,” the bench said. Referring to SC’s verdict in the Prabhu Dayal Deorah case on preventive detention, the court said, “The gravity of the evil to the community resulting from anti-social activities can never furnish an adequate reason for invading the personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with the procedure established by Constitution and laws.”Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesThe bench said that when a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed and it is necessary that the person must understand on what grounds he has been arrested.”The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest in the light of and under Article 22(1) is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard. Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as may be, it would amount to violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution, rendering the arrest illegal,” the bench said.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosTrade Boost: India-NZ FTA Opens Duty-Free Market, Visa Pathways & $20 Billion InvestmentBJP Leader Kangana Ranaut Backs Maithili Thakur Amid Rolls-Royce Controversy And Trolling‘Drug-Free Punjab?’ Sangrur Man Consumes Poison; Congress, BJP Questions AAP Government | Watch’Owaisi’s AIMIM To Help BJP?’: Congress MP Imran Masood Hits Out At Owaisi’s UP Alliance PitchIIT-Bombay ‘Suspends’ Dean After Sahil Wakode’s Death; Apologises Over Earlier Remarks | Watch‘Draconian, Unjust’: Anand Ranganathan Warns Over SC/ST Act As IIT-Bombay Case Reignites DebateHyderabad Ganpati Row: Bones, Non-Veg Food ‘Thrown’ Near Idol, 3 Held‘Please Let Us Go’: Minors Harassed; Girl Molested On Jamui Street; Shocking Video From Bihar’I Will Resign’: IIT-Bombay Director Signs 18 Student Demands; Professor Booked For Caste Abuse‘I Am Shocked’: Shashi Tharoor Presses Vaishnaw To ‘Overrule’ Babus Over Kerala Film Fest Row123PhotostoriesJacqueline Fernandez’s icy-blue Ekaya lehenga is giving summer romance with a serious glam attack10 baby names that symbolise purity, innocence and goodnessOptical illusion personality test: What you see first reveals whether you are an adventurous spirit or an easy-goerThe hidden skincare problem: How your pillowcase, phone and hair products affect your faceOTT releases this week (September 21-September 27): ‘Shaque: Trust No One’, ‘Hunkkaar: The Roar’, ‘Brothers’, ‘The Love Hypothesis’, ‘Wonka’s The Golden Ticket’ and moreTamannaah Bhatia’s House of Masaba look is the perfect definition of old-world romance with a modest edge7 seemingly normal phrases from your boss that can instantly make you wonder, ‘Am I in trouble’?7 mistakes parents make when they discover their child is exceptionally giftedKyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi’s Hiten Tejwani and Gauri Pradhan’s beautiful home: Inside their art collection, cosy corners and colourful interiors8 of the germiest places in school that students touch every day without thinking twice123Hot PicksStrike from Sep 28-30? Banks may shut for 5 days; SBI, Union Bank issue advisoryBank holiday todayPayal MehtaSBI Bank StrikeOctober 2026 School HolidaysCBSE Date SheetWorld’s Best Countries at MathUGC Equity RegulationsWeather tomorrowJEE Main 2027Top TrendingGurgaon Hit and RunYuvraj Singh ManchandaJordon HudsonMichael JordanR PraggnanandhaaSuchika TariyalCM VijayHouthis Missile AttackBihar Girl HarassmentMumbai Accident
NEW DELHI: Holding that fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution cannot be interpreted in a restrictive manner, Supreme Court on Monday held that a person’s personal liberty cannot be invaded except in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution, even if accused of a grave offence and anti-social activities, reports Amit Anand Choudhary.Elucidating Article 22 of the Constitution, which offers protection against arrest and detention in certain cases, a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar said a person must be provided with the grounds of arrest by the probe agency at the time of arrest in writing and its language understandable to the accused. SC said this is applicable in all cases including under special laws – such as PMLA and UAPA – regardless of the nature and gravity of offence.
‘Court nod required for re-arrest when flouting Article 22’
Going a step further, the bench said that if a person’s arrest is declared illegal for non-compliance with Article 22, then he or she cannot be re-arrested in the same case without approval from a senior police officer and nod from the court concerned.“We need to remind ourselves that Constitution or a constitutional provision cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. Interpretation of Constitution cannot also be left to imponderables in the form of ifs and buts. Constitution is based on certain basic principles, much above the statutory threshold. Therefore, violation of Constitution or a constitutional provision cannot be countenanced. It has to be dealt with strictly. It is not dependent on the nature or gravity of the offence, encompassing within its sweep all offences. It cannot be interpreted in a restrictive manner,” the bench said. Referring to SC’s verdict in the Prabhu Dayal Deorah case on preventive detention, the court said, “The gravity of the evil to the community resulting from anti-social activities can never furnish an adequate reason for invading the personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with the procedure established by Constitution and laws.”
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
The bench said that when a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed and it is necessary that the person must understand on what grounds he has been arrested.“The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest in the light of and under Article 22(1) is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard. Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as may be, it would amount to violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution, rendering the arrest illegal,” the bench said.
