Arnesh Kumar Guidelines

Last updated

Arnesh Kumar Guidelines
Emblem of the Supreme Court of India.svg
Court Supreme Court of India
Full case nameArnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar
Decided2014
Citation(s)2014 8 SCC 273
Case history
Appealed fromJudgement of Patna High Court
Court membership
Judges sitting Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Case opinions
Decision byChandramauli Kumar Prasad
ConcurrenceChandramauli Kumar Prasad, Pinaki Chandra Ghose

Arnesh Kumar Guidelines or Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014) is a landmark judgement of the Indian Supreme Court, [1] [2] stating arrests should be an exception, in cases where the punishment is less than seven years of imprisonment. [3] The guidelines asked the police to determine whether an arrest was necessary under the provisions of Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Police officers have a responsibility to guarantee that the principles established by the Supreme Court in its numerous decisions are followed by the investigating officers. Before authorising further detention, the judicial magistrate must read the police officer's report and make sure they are satisfied. [1]

Contents

The decision was welcomed by men's right activists but was criticised by women rights activists. [4]

Legal proceedings can be initiated against the police officials if the procedure for arrest under Section 41A CrPC and Arnesh Kumar Guidelines are violated. [2]

Background

In 1983, Section 498A was enacted, together with Section 304B on dowry deaths, to combat the threat of rising dowry deaths and violence against married women by their in-laws. [1]

In 2010, the Supreme Court asked the government to amend the dowry law to stop its misuse. The dowry laws, particularly the section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is observed by many in India as being prone to misuse because of mechanical arrests by the police. The criticism of these laws have been growing. [5] According to the National Crime Records Bureau statistics, in 2012, around 200,000 people including 47,951 women, were arrested in dowry related cases but only 15% of the accused were convicted. [6] The period between 2006 and 2015, has seen a continuous fall in the conviction rate for cases, filed under this section. It has the lowest conviction rate among all the crimes under Indian Penal Code. [7]

In 2005, Section 498A IPC was upheld by the Supreme Court of India when it was challenged. [8] In 2010, the Supreme Court spoke about the misuse of anti-dowry laws in Preeti Gupta & Another v. State of Jharkhand & Another and more detailed investigation was recommended. [9] Following the observations of the Supreme Court Indian parliament set up a committee headed by Bhagat Singh Koshyari. [10]

Judgement

On 2 July 2014, the Supreme Court while framed the guidelines the response to a Special Leave Petition (SPL) filed by one Arnesh Kumar challenging his arrest and of his family under this law. [11] [12] In the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., [11] a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court reviewed the enforcement of section 41(1)(A) of CrPC which instructs state of following certain procedure before arrest. The bench observed that the Section 498A had become a powerful weapon for disgruntled wives, where innocent people were arrested without any evidence due to non-bailable and cognizable nature of the law. [6] [13] The Supreme Court said that the anti dowry law (Section 498A) is being used by some women to harass their husband and in-laws. The court prohibited the police from making arrests on the mere basis of a complaint. The court asked the police to follow Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides a 9-point checklist which must be used to decide the need for an arrest. The court also said that a magistrate must decide whether an arrested accused is needed to be kept under further detention. [14] [11]

Reaction

Others welcomed the decision as landmark judgment to uphold the human rights of innocent people. [15] [16] The decision received criticism from feminists because it weakened the negotiating power of women. [17] [18] [19]

Aftermath

In 2014, it was reported that due to the lack of communication to police stations, the Arnesh Kumar Guidelines by Supreme Court of India were not followed. [20]

In May 2021, the amicus curiae submitted that the Madhya Pradesh Police were not following the Arnesh Kumar guidelines. Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered that the Director general of police (DGP) must issue directions to Police to follow the Arnesh Kumar Guidelines. The accused who were arrested without following the Arnesh Kumar Guidelines were entitled to apply for regular bail citing the violation of the guidelines. The court also asked the State Judicial Academy to spread awareness of the Arnesh Kumar Guidelines among the police officers and judicial magistrates. [3]

In 2021 due to the overcrowding of prisons during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in India, the Supreme Court said no arrests should be made in violation of the Arnesh Kumar Guidelines. [3]

In November 2021, while hearing a petition from a Hyderabad resident, Telangana High Court granted the petitioner, liberty to start legal proceedings against the police officials if the procedure for arrest under Section 41A CrPC and Arnesh Kumar Guidelines are violated. [2] The bench noted, "Hence, police are directed to adhere to the procedure Contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra) scrupulously. Any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously." [21]

In a significant judgment on 4 January, the Delhi High Court held a police officer guilty of contempt of court for arresting a man in violation of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar. The Court sentenced the police officer to one-day imprisonment for contempt of court.

In August 2022 Allahabad HC Holds Police Officer Guilty Of Contempt For Violating 'Arnesh Kumar Guidelines', Sentences Him To 14 Day Imprisonment. [22]

Related Research Articles

The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is public interest litigation (PIL) or social action litigation (SAL). It refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and demonstrates the availability of justice to socially-disadvantaged parties and was introduced by Justice P. N. Bhagwati. It is a relaxation on the traditional rule of locus standi. Before 1980s the judiciary and the Supreme Court of India entertained litigation only from parties affected directly or indirectly by the defendant. It heard and decided cases only under its original and appellate jurisdictions. However, the Supreme Court began permitting cases on the grounds of public interest litigation, which means that even people who are not directly involved in the case may bring matters of public interest to the court. It is the court's privilege to entertain the application for the PIL.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span> Death penalty in India, its states and union territories

Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution as given under Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is awarded only in the 'rarest of cases'.

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 was enacted by the Parliament of India to prevent atrocities and hate crimes against the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The Act is popularly known as the SC/ST Act, PoA, or simply the 'Atrocities Act'.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Information Technology Act, 2000</span> Act of the Parliament of India

The Information Technology Act, 2000 is an Act of the Indian Parliament notified on 17 October 2000. It is the primary law in India dealing with cybercrime and electronic commerce.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ravi Shankar Prasad</span> Indian politician and lawyer

Ravi Shankar Prasad is an Indian politician and lawyer, from the Bharatiya Janata Party. A Member of Parliament since 2000, first in the Rajya Sabha (2000-2019) and then in the Lok Sabha, Prasad has served as Union Minister multiple times: As Minister of State, he served in the ministries of Coal (2001-2003), Law and Justice (2002-2003), and Information and Broadcasting (2003-2004) under Atal Bihari Vajpayee's premiership; as Cabinet Minister, he held the Law and Justice, Communications, and Electronics and Information Technology (2014-2021) portfolios under Narendra Modi's premiership.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Men's rights movement in India</span>

The men's rights movement in India is composed of various independent men's rights organisations in India. Proponents of the movement support the introduction of gender-neutral legislation and repeal of laws that they consider are biased against men.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act</span> Indian law to prevent unlawful activities

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is an Indian law aimed at prevention of unlawful activities associations in India. Its main objective was to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. The most recent amendment of the law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 has made it possible for the Union Government to designate individuals as terrorists without following any formal judicial process. UAPA is also known as the "Anti-terror law".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002</span> Act of the Parliament of India

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted by the NDA government to prevent money-laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from money-laundering. PMLA and the Rules notified there under came into force with effect from July 1, 2005. The Act and Rules notified there under impose obligation on banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries to verify identity of clients, maintain records and furnish information in prescribed form to Financial Intelligence Unit - India (FIU-IND).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Enforcement Directorate</span> Law enforcement agency and economic intelligence agency of India

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is a domestic law enforcement agency and economic intelligence agency responsible for enforcing economic laws and fighting economic crime in India. It is part of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government Of India. The Enforcement Directorate focuses on investigating and prosecuting cases related to money laundering, foreign exchange violations, and economic offenses. Its primary objective is to curb the generation and circulation of black money and to ensure compliance with the laws concerning foreign exchange and prevention of money laundering. However, the enforcement directorate has been discredited as one of the major Indian agencies that misuses powers against activists, scholars, and political rivals with a 0.5% conviction rate since its inception.

Chandramauli Kumar Prasad is the Chairman of the Press Council of India. Prior to his appointment, he served as a judge of the Supreme Court of India from 8 February 2010 to 14 July 2014.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Code of Criminal Procedure (India)</span> Code of criminal law of India

The Code of Criminal Procedure commonly called Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is the main legislation on procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was enacted in 1973 and came into force on 1 April 1974. It provides the machinery for the investigation of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person and the determination of punishment of the guilty. It also deals with public nuisance, prevention of offences and maintenance of wife, child and parents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Domestic violence in India</span>

Domestic violence in India includes any form of violence suffered by a person from a biological relative but typically is the violence suffered by a woman by male members of her family or relatives. Although Men also suffer Domestic violence, the law under IPC 498A specifically protects only women. Specifically only a woman can file a case of domestic violence. According to a National Family and Health Survey in 2005, total lifetime prevalence of domestic violence was 33.5% and 8.5% for sexual violence among women aged 15–49. A 2014 study in The Lancet reports that although the reported sexual violence rate in India is among the lowest in the world, the large population of India means that the violence affects 27.5 million women over their lifetimes. However, an opinion survey among experts carried out by the Thomson Reuters Foundation ranked India as the most dangerous country in the world for women.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adarsh Kumar Goel</span> Chairperson of National Green Tribunal

Adarsh Kumar Goel is an Indian judge. He is Chairperson of National Green Tribunal. He is former judge of the Supreme Court of India. He is also former chief justice of the Orissa High Court and Gauhati High Court, and a former judge of the Gauhati High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The dowry system in India refers to the durable goods, cash, and real or movable property that the bride's family gives to the groom, his parents and his relatives as a condition of the marriage. Dowry is called dahez in Hindi and as jahez in Urdu.

In early April 2018, lakhs of people belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) protested across India against an order of the Supreme Court on the Atrocities Act. In subsequent violence, 14 people died and hundreds were injured.

Menaka Guruswamy is a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. She was the B.R. Ambedkar Research Scholar and Lecturer at Columbia Law School, New York from 2017 to 2019. Guruswamy has been visiting faculty at Yale Law School, New York University School of Law and University of Toronto Faculty of Law. She is known for having played a significant role in many landmark cases before the Supreme Court, including the Section 377 case, the bureaucratic reforms case, the Augusta Westland bribery case, the Salwa Judum case, and the Right to Education case. She is assisting the Supreme Court as Amicus Curie in the case pertaining to the alleged extrajudicial killings of 1,528 persons in Manipur.

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code lays down the punishment for sedition. The Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860, under the British Raj. Section 124A forms part of Chapter VI of the Code which deals with offences against the state. Chapter VI comprises sections from 121 to 130, wherein section 121A and 124A were introduced in 1870. The then British government of India feared that the Khilafat movement on the Indian subcontinent would wage a war against them. Particularly after the successful suppression of Wahabi/Waliullah Movement, the need was felt for such a law. Throughout the Raj, the section was used to suppress political dissent in favour of independence, including Lokmanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, both of whom were found guilty and imprisoned.

Custodial deaths in India may refer to the deaths of persons in police custody and also to the deaths of persons in judicial custody while undergoing trail or serving a sentence. In the financial year 2021–22, the National Human Rights Commission of India reported 2152 deaths had occurred in judicial custody and 155 deaths had occurred in police custody till 28 February 2022. According to a report released by National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT), there were 1606 deaths in 2019 which occurred in judicial custody and 125 death occurred in police custody. On 26 July 2022, while answering a question in the Lok Sabha Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai revealed that 4484 cases of custodial deaths were reported in India during the period FY 2020-21 to FY 2021-22

Pendency of court cases in India is the delay in the disposal of cases (lawsuits) to provide justice to the aggrieved person or organisation by judicial courts at all levels. The judiciary in India works in hierarchy at three levels - federal or supreme court, state or high courts, and district courts. The court cases is categorised into two types - civil and criminal. In 2022, the total number of pending cases of all types and at all levels rose to 50 million or 5 crores, including over 169,000 court cases pending for more than 30 years in district and high courts. 4.3 crore out of 5 crore cases, i.e more than 85% cases, are pending in district courts as of December 2022. Government itself is the biggest litigant, having 50% of the pending cases being sponsored by the state.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Vij, R. K. (3 November 2021). "On dealing with false criminal cases". The Hindu. Retrieved 21 November 2021.
  2. 1 2 3 James, Sebin (21 November 2021). "Police Officials To Face Action If Arrest Procedure Under Sec 41A CrPC & 'Arnesh Kumar' Guidelines Are Violated : Telangana High Court". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 21 November 2021.
  3. 1 2 3 "DGP Must Issue Directions to Police To Adhere to SC Guidelines in Arnesh Kumar: Madhya Pradesh HC". The Wire. 20 May 2021. Retrieved 21 November 2021.
  4. ↑ Pallavi Polanki (4 July 2014). "Activists on SC ruling: Why single out dowry harassment law as case of misuse?". First Post. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
  5. ↑ "Amend dowry law to stop its misuse, SC tells govt". The Times of India . 17 August 2010. Archived from the original on 7 July 2012.
  6. 1 2 "Women Misusing India's Anti-Dowry Law, says Supreme Court". 3 July 2014. Archived from the original on 9 January 2015.
  7. ↑ Dubbudu, Rakesh (29 July 2017). "Debate I Low Conviction Rate in Dowry Cases, No Proof of Misuse". TheQuint. Retrieved 21 November 2021.
  8. ↑ "Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 July, 2005". Indiankanoon.org. Archived from the original on 11 February 2013. Retrieved 18 February 2013.
  9. ↑ Preeti Gupta & Another v. State of Jharkhand & Another, AIR 2010 SC 3363
  10. ↑ "Par Panel recommends review of Dowry Act". Archived from the original on 18 May 2015.
  11. 1 2 3 Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar( Supreme Court of India 2014). Text
  12. ↑ "No automatic arrests in dowry cases, says SC". The Hindu . 3 July 2014. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
  13. ↑ Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., AIR 2014 SC 2756
  14. ↑ "No arrests under anti-dowry law without magistrate's nod: SC". The Times of India . 3 July 2013. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
  15. ↑ Dhulia, Virag (6 July 2014). "Supreme Court judgment restricting automatic arrests in dowry cases well within the Constitution". MeriNews. Archived from the original on 22 July 2015. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  16. ↑ Singh, Abha (3 July 2014). "Abha Singh calls Supreme Court decision on Section 498A a landmark judgement". India.com. ANI. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  17. ↑ Jaising, Indira (July 2014). "Concern for the Dead, Condemnation for the Living". Economic & Political Weekly. 49 (30).
  18. ↑ Why Women need 498A, Economic & Political Weekly, vol. XLIX no. 29 (July 2014)
  19. ↑ Prashant K. Trivnd Smriti Singh (December 2014). "Fallacies of a Supreme Court Judgment: Section 498A and the Dynamics of Acquittals". Economic & Political Weekly. 44 (52).
  20. ↑ "False complaints to be punished". Navodaya Times. 23 November 2014. Retrieved 26 November 2014.
  21. ↑ "Police Officials To Face Action If Arrest Procedure Under Section 41A CrPC & Arnesh Kumar Guidelines Are Violated - Others". lawyersclubindia. Retrieved 29 November 2021.
  22. ↑ "Allahabad HC Holds Police Officer Guilty of Contempt for Violating 'Arnesh Kumar Guidelines', Sentences Him to 14 Day Imprisonment". 21 August 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.