The court ruled that mere allegations of procedural violations in arrest do not constitute contempt without clear evidence of wilful disobedience of court orders.

J U D G M E N T

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present contempt case has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging non- compliance/violations of the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the caseD.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1997 SC 610].

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was arrested on 28.07.2024 by one Police Officer deployed by the 2^nd respondent and assisted by the complainant who submitted a complaint against the petitioner and his son to the 2^nd respondent and other three persons. FIR was lodged by the 2^nd respondent on 24.07.2024.

3. The contention of the petitioner in person is that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in paragraph 36 of D.K. Basu’s case (supra), has laid down certain guidelines to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention. Paragraph 36 reads as follows:

“36. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures :

(1) xxxxx

(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest”.

4. In paragraph 37, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:

“37. Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the concerned official liable for departmental action, also render him liable to be punished for contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of Court may be instituted in any High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter”.

5. The petitioner in person submitted that neither the family of the petitioner nor the local Police i.e. Maradu Police was informed about the arrest of the petitioner. Without informing either the wife or the son of the petitioner, arresting the petitioner and taking him to Tamilnadu, which involved a journey of 9 hours, is blatant violation of the requirement stated in clause 2 of paragraph 36 of D.K. Basu’s case (supra). The respondents were duty bound to see that their subordinates do not flout the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The mental stress and strain undergone by the wife and son of the petitioner cannot be described in words. Since the petitioner was arrested from his house which is situated at Maradu in Ernakulam which is within the jurisdiction of this Court, this contempt case is filed before this Court and the same is maintainable in the light of the directions issued in paragraph 37 of D.K. Basu’s case (supra).

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the 1^st respondent is absolutely an unnecessary party in the proceedings, since he is not directly involved in the matter in any manner. But the 1^st respondent is duty bound to see that his subordinates did not flout the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court. There is no specific overt act or involvement alleged against the 1^st respondent who is the Head of the Police in the State. Even the 1^st respondent had no knowledge regarding the issue detailed by the petitioner in the contempt case regarding his arrest. In view of the aforesaid, no wilful disobedience can be attributed to the respondents herein. It is also contended that all required action initiated without any lapse. It is further contended that in case the petitioner was aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents and also with regard to his arrest, the proper remedy would have to approach the competent court making challenge to the order of arrest. Instead of filing such a petition, the petitioner has approached this Court directly. Moreover, there is no specific direction at all to any of the respondents to act in a particular man