Supreme Court Mandates Written Grounds for All Arrests; Delhi High Court Tackles Deepfakes, EPF for Expats, and Student Rights

New Delhi – In a landmark week for Indian jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has fundamentally altered arrest procedures by mandating the provision of written grounds for arrest in all criminal cases, while the Delhi High Court delivered a series of significant rulings on issues ranging from the personality rights of public figures and the scourge of AI-generated deepfakes to the employment rights of international workers and the academic freedom of law students.

---

Supreme Court Expands Constitutional Safeguards in Arrest Procedures

In a ruling with far-reaching implications for criminal justice administration, the Supreme Court has declared that an arrest and subsequent detention are rendered unlawful if the accused is not provided with the grounds of arrest in writing and in a language they understand. The judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra significantly expands the procedural safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held that the constitutional mandate is not a mere formality but a crucial safeguard protecting the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. Building on the precedents set in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (concerning PMLA) and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (concerning UAPA), the Court has now unequivocally extended this requirement to all offences under every statute, including the Indian Penal Code (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

The Court articulated a clear, four-point directive to ensure uniform compliance: 1. Informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory for all offences. 2. The grounds must be communicated in writing and in a language the arrestee understands. 3. If providing written grounds immediately is not feasible, they must be given at least two hours before the arrestee is produced for remand. 4. Non-compliance will render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, entitling the individual to be set free.

The judgment states, “The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest... is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard... if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as maybe, it would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights... rendering the arrest illegal.” This decision is poised to enforce greater transparency and accountability from law enforcement agencies nationwide.

In a separate matter concerning civil procedure, the Apex Court in Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. clarified the implications of a litigant's death during an appeal. The Court ruled that a judgment passed in favour of a person who died before the appeal hearing is a legal nullity. It held that under Order XXII Rule 6 of the CPC, an appeal automatically abates if the appellant dies before the hearing and their legal heirs are not substituted, reviving the trial court's original decree.

---

Delhi High Court’s Key Judgments of the Week

The Delhi High Court delivered a diverse and impactful set of rulings, addressing contemporary legal challenges and reinforcing established principles across various domains of law.

Media, Defamation, and the Rise of Deepfakes

The intersection of media, technology, and personal rights was a prominent theme. In a significant order, the Court protected the personality rights of senior journalist Rajat Sharma by ordering the takedown of two YouTube channels circulating deepfake and fabricated videos of him. This ruling adds to a growing body of jurisprudence aimed at combating digital impersonation and misinformation.

Similarly, actress and Member of Parliament Jaya Bachchan has approached the High Court seeking protection of her personality rights against the unauthorized use of her name, image, and voice, particularly in morphed images and defamatory videos online. The Court has asked her legal team to refile the plaint to correct errors and serve all relevant parties, including major tech platforms, before it passes an order.

In other media-related cases, the Court quashed summons issued against journalist Arnab Goswami in a criminal defamation case, providing relief to the news anchor. However, it refused to discharge TV Today Network (owner of Aaj Tak and India Today) in a separate criminal defamation case filed by BJP leader Ramesh Bidhuri, signaling that the media house must face trial. The Court also flagged a “disturbing trend” of media reporting on innocuous judicial remarks during hearings “only to create sensation,” calling for more responsible court reporting.

Commercial and Intellectual Property Disputes

The High Court’s commercial benches were active, adjudicating several high-profile trademark disputes. It granted relief to Ching’s Secret by restraining a competitor from using the deceptively similar 'Schezwan Tufani Chutney'. Likewise, Hero Investcorp secured an injunction against the sale of counterfeit 'Hero Genuine Oil', and Lotus Herbals obtained an order restraining a salon from using the 'Lotus' mark.

In a nuanced decision in Mohammad Talha v. M/s Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd , the Court balanced competing interests by allowing a Moradabad-based restaurant to use the name “Gulshan-e-Karim” but mandated a clear disclaimer of any association with the iconic Delhi-based “Karim's” chain. This approach acknowledges brand recognition while preventing outright consumer confusion.

Labour, Education, and Service Law

In a constitutionally significant ruling in Spice Jet v. Union of India , the Court held that international workers in Indian companies, who are not covered by a social security agreement in their home country, must contribute to the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF). The Court dismissed arguments that this requirement was discriminatory, upholding the principle of social security for all employees working within India.

On the academic front, the Court delivered a landmark judgment in a suo motu case concerning a student's suicide, ruling that “no student enrolled in any recognized law college... shall be detained from taking examination or be prevented from further academic pursuits... on the ground of lack of minimum attendance.” This order prioritizes students' academic careers over rigid attendance norms. In another case, it upheld Jawaharlal Nehru University's election rules allowing students from all academic levels to vote for representatives to its Internal Committee on sexual harassment.

Criminal Law and Procedure

The High Court reinforced crucial principles of criminal jurisprudence. It clarified the distinction between a 'false promise to marry' and a 'breach of promise', granting bail to a 20-year-old in a rape case. In another powerful observation, the Court stated that a victim’s character, “no matter how blemished, cannot be weaponised against her to imply consent” in rape cases.

In a case concerning cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC, the Court made two important clarifications. First, it held that the provision applies even if the marriage between the parties is later declared invalid. Second, it observed that “mere taunts, casual references and general family friction” common in marital life do not meet the threshold for the offence of cruelty.

Further, the Court ruled that profits earned from investing bribe money in the share market constitute 'proceeds of crime' and are liable for attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It also clarified that a court order stating "no coercive steps" should not be misconstrued as a stay or suspension of an ongoing investigation.

These judgments from India's highest courts underscore a dynamic legal landscape, where judicial intervention is actively shaping the contours of fundamental rights, corporate governance, and individual liberties in an increasingly complex world.