The constitutional requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds for arrest is not satisfied by merely enumerating the sections of the Criminal Law Amendment Act or the Indian Penal Code.

R.P.Khosla, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus.

2. The petitioner is stated to be the Chairman of All India Socialist Party. The Socialist Party (Punjab Branch) has lodged satyagraha against the rising food prices and the burden of oppressive taxation. It is alleged that the petitioner with a view to acquaint himself with the situation was on a round to different districts of Punjab. On 7th January, 1959, according to programme, the petitioner came to Hissar and while he was in the office of the local Socialist Party, Hissar, he was arrested at about 2-30 p.m. It is alleged that the petitioner was arrested without any warrant of arrest shown or having been informed about the cause of the arrest. The detention of the petitioner is claimed to be ultra vires of the Constitution and otherwise illegal.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kajinder Sacher, was that the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India were violated, for no grounds of arrest had been given to the petitioner at the time of the arrest as envisaged by the said Article. Elaborating the point, the learned counsel submitted that if the arrest if under any warrant of arrest, the reading of the warrant which normally gives the grounds of the arrest is enough compliance, but in cases of cognizable offences where the arrest can be effceted without warrant it is imperative that the grounds of arrest are given to the petitioner before he is taken into custody. To appreciate the argument, it is necessary to set down the terms of Article 22(1) of the Constitution which reads-

"No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice."

On the construction of the above provision, it was suggested that the detention of the petitioner was repugnant to the Article, for grounds of arrest had not been given to him. The detention accordingly was claimed to be patently illegal.

4. For the State on the opposite side, on the basis of an affidavit filed in opposition that of the investigating officer, it was contended that the petitioner was at the time of arrest informed of the offences for which he was being arrested. The relevant paragraph 5 of the said affidavit is worded as follows:

"That it is correct that he was arrested from the office of the Socialist Party at about 3-30 p.m. and was taken to the police station, and at the time of arrest he was told that he is being arrested in the abetment of Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 143 read with Section 117, Indian Penal Code."

The submission was that informing the petitioner of the sections of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, and of the Indian Penal Code for which he was being proceeded with was enough compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It might be noted here that there is no other material on the record to show that any specific grounds for his arrest were supplied, to the petitioner before he was taken into custody. Paragraph 9(b) of the said affidavit in opposition to the effect that the petitioner was arrested for committing cognizable offences and that the petitioner at the time of arrest was informed by him (deponent) that he was being arrested for abetment of committing offences mentioned above, does not advance the master. On facts, therefore, it will have to be taken that at the time of the arrest, the petitioner was informed only of the particular sections of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Indian Penal Code for which he was being arrested.

5. Question, therefore, arises whether enumeration of sections of Criminal Law Amendment Act or of Indian Penal Code was proper compliance of the constitutional requirements as envisaged by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It is well known