Supreme Court Quashes Arrests Under UAPA for Failure to Provide Written Grounds of Arrest: Reaffirms Right to Liberty Under Article 22.


14 October 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

In a major reaffirmation of constitutional protection against arbitrary arrest, the Supreme Court of India has declared null and void the arrest and remand of persons accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) on account of the failure of authorities to provide written reasons of arrest during the time of arrest.

Rendering the verdict on October 14, 2025, in Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. v. State Rep. by Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr., a bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi ruled that the requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing under Section 43B of the UAPA was not complied with.

 

 

The appellants were arrested under charges of Sections 153A, 153B, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 13 and 18 of the UAPA. Their arrest and remand were upheld by the High Court on the basis of the argument that the reasons had been "explained" during remand proceedings and a copy of the same provided to their lawyers.

The Supreme Court did, however, uphold firmly that rationale, holding that oral explanation or subsequent disclosure to counsel could not replace compliance with the statutory and constitutional requirement that the arrested individual themselves must be given written reasons of arrest.

Referencing its previous judgements in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court reaffirmed that this responsibility follows directly from Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, which ensure the fundamental right to individual liberty.

The court referred to the principle established in Prabir Purkayastha, where the difference between "reasons for arrest" and "grounds of arrest" was highlighted. The former are broad considerations to be applied across any case, and the latter pertain to special facts and evidence constituting the grounds for the arrest of a person. The grounds are hence to be communicated in writing so that the accused may be able to pursue legal remedies effectively, such as seeking bail.

In upholding this stance, the Supreme Court noted:
  • "The explanation offered by the Court in which the arrestees are produced can never be a sufficient compliance of providing the reasons for the arrest at the time of securing an accused."
  • The judgment also referred to the purpose behind Section 50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which information regarding an arrest is to be sent not only to the arrested person but also to his named relatives or friends so that immediate legal aid can be arranged and the right to liberty becomes meaningful and effective.
While setting aside the orders of arrest and remand, the bench made it clear that the authorities are still free to act in fresh proceedings as per law, subject to the due process being followed strictly.

The decision reinforces judicial control over procedural adherence in UAPA cases and reaffirms that national security laws cannot take precedence over the basic constitutional requirement of due process. It is consistent with a growing jurisprudence of the Supreme Court highlighting accountability and protection against abuse of preventive and special criminal laws.

By reiterating that written notice of arrest reasons is essential, the Court has asserted an important principle: that rule of law must accompany even the most serious criminal investigations, and the right to liberty cannot be forfeited to administrative expediency.


Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967  

Indian Penal Code, 1860