Back
Seeks on from Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh
A Call for Accountability on Arrest Procedures
In a significant move to curb , the has directed the top police and administrative officials of Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh to file detailed affidavits explaining their compliance with the 's directives on . The order was passed by Justice Sudeepti Sharma in a batch of that alleged with the procedure under .
The Legal Framework: From Delhi to the
The Court was assisted by , appointed as , who drew attention to a landmark judgment of the in . That judgment had laid down a comprehensive protocol for issuing notices under Section 41-A CrPC, including a , a for investigating officers, and unable to attend. The subsequently issued to implement this framework.
The , in
Satender Kumar Antil v.
(
), expressly took note of the
's procedure and the
standing order, observing that such measures would
"certainly take care of
."
In paragraph 73(d) of that judgment, the apex court directed all state governments and Union Territories to
"facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41A of the Code."
High Court's Directive: Show Compliance or Face Consequences
Noting that the 's mandate was "unambiguously clear," Justice Sharma directed the Directors General of Police and Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana, and UT Chandigarh to file specific affidavits detailing how the directions in paragraph 73(d) of
Satender Kumar Antil
have been complied with
"in its
."
The Court further ordered that the proformas currently being used for issuing notices under Section 41-A and the corresponding acknowledgment formats be attached to the affidavits for the Court's perusal.
The Court made it clear that the affidavits must be filed at least two days before the next hearing, with advance copies to the , failing which "." Copies of the order were directed to be transmitted to the respective DGPs and Chief Secretaries through state counsels to ensure strict compliance.
Next Steps
With arguments heard in part, the matter has been adjourned to , when the Court will examine the . The outcome could have far-reaching implications for arrest procedures in the region, reinforcing the safeguards against that the has consistently emphasized.
