Chandhana K U·
Constitution of IndiaCriminal Law
··

India’s Arrest Procedures: A Critical Examination

About the Author

This article is written by Ahana Majumder. She is a 4th year BBA LLB student at Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur. She is also an editor trainee at ljrfvoice.com

Abstract

The paper offers an exhaustive study of the policies on arrests in India, seeking to understand their meaning, complexities, and the rights they contain. It investigates the relevant legal framework that governs arrest procedures to identify gaps and push for necessary improvements in line with ongoing debates. Essentially this review places greatest weight on ensuring that detentions are done following highest standards of legality and fairness. However, it recognizes many cases where such ideals have not been met hence calls for critical reflection upon current methods. By doing so it reveals institutional weaknesses which impede fair dispensation of justice thereby demanding immediate intervention. What this means is that criminal accountability forms core part of our discussions here today; thus, implying need for transparency during arrests processes based on responsibility alone. In other words, we should not only look at single incidents but also consider wider systemic problems within law enforcement agencies which can foster injustices. This being so, the paper calls for a rethinking of arrest policies in order to reinforce the protection of civil liberties. This includes setting up strong protection measures against unlawful detention, making sure that due process is strictly followed and promoting transparency at all stages of arrest. The paper is thus a wake-up call for a complete overhaul of India’s arrest policies; it points out areas needing improvement and proposes changes aimed at creating an environment where fairness is seen as being done by everyone regardless of their social status.

Keywords: Arrest, debates, arrest policy, criminal accountability, justice

Introduction

The term arrest means a restriction of one’s freedom. It refers to legally or seemingly legally taking away somebody’s freedom by the competent and skilled authorities. When legal authorities detain someone because they want to stop a crime from happening or due to criminal charges filed against them, this is known as an arrest. People without any criminal records may be arrested or detained for purposes of moving them around one place to another. For instance, like the removal of a child from a prostitute’s dwelling place. The two classes of arrest which are classified under Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 are arrests made with warrants and arrests made without warrants.

A thorough analysis of the arrest policy in India is what is being aimed at by this article. The definition and legal connotations of “arrest” will be looked at first. Next, it will investigate India’s legal aspects with regards to arrest procedures; the responsibilities of state, rights of arrested persons and authority of police officers. This paper also analyzes the relevant laws on arrest highlighting areas for improvement and suggesting changes that would protect individual rights and enhance procedural justice. This paper seeks to critically evaluate the existing laws governing arrests in India as well as suggest changes that should be made. It aims to foster a more fair and just system in criminal justice that upholds rule of law while defending interests of all involved parties by addressing challenges surrounding current arrest policy.

The Procedure of Arrest in India

  • The procedure of arrest is stated under Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whether with or without any warrant as such, but no code provides this procedure altogether. Section 46(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states that the police officer, while arresting, should touch or confine the person’s body to arrest that person. In cases where the accused is a female, an oral intimation of arrest shall presume female submission to custody. A police officer may not touch a woman at that time unless she is a female. Exceptions can be made, however, contrary to what is stated. According to Section 46(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the police may use reasonable force to make the arrest whenever the person being arrested resists or tries to escape. Under this clause, the police officer used force to stop the accused from fleeing. The court will determine the appropriateness of the force deployed.
  • A person who is not accused of an offense is not allowed to be killed under Section 46(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Death or life imprisonment are the punishments in such cases.
  • According to section 46(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arresting a woman before sunset or after sunrise is prohibited. By making a written report to the local judicial magistrate, the female police officer may obtain permission to arrest a woman under such exceptional conditions. The police may not handcuff a person arrested under a warrant of arrest obtained from a magistrate unless the police obtain a court order to do so. 
  • An arresting officer may use as many means as necessary to arrest someone who resists or evades arrest. Anyone authorized to be arrested can be arrested without a warrant at any place in India by police officers under Section 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  • Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits restraints or physical inconveniences from preventing an arrestee from escaping unless it is necessary.

Rights of an Arrested Person

Arresting a person can ensure his presence at the trial if he is charged with an offense or if he plans or prevents a crime from being committed. Until a contradiction is proven against a person, the law presumes him innocent. Arrestees should be treated with respect, dignity, and humanity until proven guilty and should not be discriminated against by other citizens. It is mentioned under Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights1 that everyone should be treated equally, which is also given under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Indian law is concerned with all people’s rights and personal freedom and does not want anyone to be detained without legal authority. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution mentions the right to life and liberty. Detention is only allowed with a legal process that is right, fair, and just. It cannot be arbitrarily, oppressively, or according to the whims of individuals. Arrests should be legally justified. The various rights of the arrested person are:

  • The arrested person has the right to be informed about the reason or justification of the arrest and the type of offense one is charged with, whether bailable or non-bailable under Sec. 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and article 22 of the Indian Constitution. The arrested person has the right to see the warrant and verify it in case of a non-cognizable offense under Sec. 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  • An arrested person under Sections 41D and 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has the right to contact a counsel of their preference during interrogation. Additionally, Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 grants individuals who have been arrested the right to inform friends, family, or relatives of their arrest.
  • An arrested person cannot be detained for more than 24 hours without first appearing before a magistrate within that 24 hours to avoid wrongful and illegal arrests. This right is enshrined in Article 22 of the Indian Constitution and supported by Sections 57 and 76 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  • An arrestee may request a medical examination by a medical officer at any time while in custody or before a magistrate. As a result, he can prove that he did not commit the offense charged or that the police harassed and tortured them under Sections 54 and 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 55S states that it is the officials’ responsibility to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of the arrested person to some extent.
  • According to Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution, those arrested also have the right not to receive the more severe punishment and only to receive the penalty authorized by the legislation in place when the crime was committed. They also have the right not to get punished for the same offense twice, which is the right against Double Jeopardy given under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution. Individuals also have the right to remain silent under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits coercing an accused person into disclosing information that might be used to establish his guilt of the crime.

Critical Analysis

The main reason for the power of arrest is to allow the police officers to proceed on the assumption that the evident suspicion is ill-founded 2. Despite this, police officers are free to arrest at their whims and fancies, without restrictions. Several reports discuss this in detail. Also, according to a law commission report, arrests for preventative regulations occur more frequently than for substantive regulations3. To reduce crime rates and check the abuse of police power to arrest, the arrest provisions need to be overhauled. As police officers prepare station records, it is nearly impossible to collect evidence against them. Safeguards exist only on paper and are not enforced. The Law Commission stated that modifications or amendments are meaningless if the arrested person is not given the information4 about why they were arrested5.

Written approval from the station’s officer was also required before an arrest could be made. In Section 167(2), the magistrates can only order detention if the reasons are good but cannot question the reasoning behind the arrest and malice. In India, 60 percent of all arrests are unjust6. Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 safeguards arrested persons in malicious cases, which manifests well when the accused has political approaches. The arrested person needs to prove that the arrest was unjust and that they did not get an opportunity for effective representation against the detention7. If this is not proved, then the court cannot stop the detention and cannot question the claims that justify the detention8.

Section 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prohibits restraints or physical inconveniences from preventing an arrestee from escaping unless it is necessary. Unless the person being arrested is punished with death or imprisonment for life, the police cannot inflict death.

This demonstrates that a police officer may even cause a person’s death when the suspect is guilty and is punished by life imprisonment or death, which is disheartening since an officer will have the authority to murder someone based just on suspicion. In this circumstance, the judiciary is not engaged; instead, a departmental inquiry is carried out, followed by a decision to close the matter, and forego future legal action. Even incarcerated rapes are not punished, resulting in a lack of empathy. The proof in such cases remains on the accused, and the torture and harassment continue. Article 59 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that no one can be exposed to inhumane or cruel torture10 and treatment.  

In the case of Prakash Singh11, police reforms were discussed. These directives covered various topics, such as how to separate the police’s investigation role from their role as law enforcement and establish the Police Complaint Authority and the Police Establishment Board. In 2010, K.T. Thomas wrote that the states never adhered to these rules in theory or practice and expressed dismay at how the government handled police reform12. When arrested without reason or justification, it violates a person’s fundamental right to life and liberty13. Before deciding, the magistrate should evaluate the case’s facts and evidence14.

An arrest cannot be made if a notice is served to appear at the station and not depart without authorization15. An arrest made for the benefit of the citizens and accompanied by torture is not just and fair and violates Article 2116 of the Indian Constitution. Without any procedure given by law, arbitrary and unjust arrests by officials should be punished17. If personal enmity exists between the accused and the officer, then a very reliable and high degree of evidence is needed to prove that the officer acted in good faith18. Hence, police officers must arrest only when the reason is justified and based on an appropriate investigation to effect the arrest and determine the veracity of the accusation19. According to Section 920 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, no one can be arrested or detained arbitrarily.

Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states that only female officers shall arrest a woman. In some cases, the male officer can make the arrest but cannot touch or confine her body. The female officer is only empowered to touch or confine if the woman fails to surrender. A woman cannot be detained between sunset and sunrise. Nonetheless, under Section 46(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a woman may, in rare circumstances, be taken into custody by a female officer between sunset and sunrise. However, the female police officer must file a report and request the magistrate’s approval.

According to the National Human Rights Commission, a female officer should detain a woman whenever feasible. Still, if a male officer touches or restrains a woman without her permission, it would constitute physical abuse21.

In Sheela Barse vs. State of Maharashtra 22, the Apex Court stated that the arrested women should be kept in a female jail away from men. A female officer should be in the room if there is no female jail. To maintain women’s dignity and reputation, they should only be interrogated at their homes for further investigation. A pregnant woman should not be arrested, and women should get proper prenatal and postpartum care. A woman also cannot be arrested before sunrise or after sunset.

In State of Maharashtra vs. Christian Community Welfare Council of India 23, the High Court held that Male officers could not arrest women, and female officers must arrest women. In its ruling, the Apex Court decided that the presence of female police officers is only sometimes practical.

It is, however, imperative that every strategy be taken to recruit female officers. If it is not possible, the male officers can arrest to avoid problems with the investigation. As no inquiry is made, male officers use this method to harass women even when a female officer is readily available, like a woman was wrongfully imprisoned by a male police officer in Bharati S. Khandar vs. Maruti Govind Jadav 24, who also oppressed her. In Kavita Manikikar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation BS & FC and Ors. 25, the CBI officers were held accountable by the court for violating Section 46(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Legal Frameworks and Procedural Safeguards

Arrest procedures are governed by legal frameworks established within each jurisdiction, delineating the powers and limitations of law enforcement agencies. These frameworks typically incorporate procedural safeguards aimed at protecting the rights of individuals subject to arrest. Key elements of such safeguards include:

a. Probable Cause: In many legal systems, law enforcement officers are required to have probable cause before making an arrest. Probable cause refers to reasonable grounds for belief, based on facts and circumstances, that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime.

b. Warrant Requirement: In some cases, arrests must be made pursuant to a warrant issued by a judicial authority. Warrants are typically issued upon a showing of probable cause by law enforcement.

c. Notification of Rights: Upon arrest, individuals are usually informed of their rights, commonly referred to as Miranda rights. These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel.

d. Due Process: Arrestees are entitled to due process, which entails fair treatment and procedural protections throughout the legal process, including the right to a timely hearing before a judge.

Despite the presence of these procedural safeguards, discrepancies in arrest procedures often arise due to various factors, including interpretation of laws, enforcement practices, and resource constraints.

Factors Contributing to Discrepancies in Arrest Procedures

a. Law Enforcement Discretion: Police officers possess a significant degree of discretion in deciding when and how to make arrests. While this discretion allows for flexibility in responding to diverse situations, it can also lead to disparities in enforcement based on factors such as race, socio-economic status, and personal biases.

b. Resource Allocation: Limited resources, including personnel and funding, may influence law enforcement priorities and strategies. In some jurisdictions, resource constraints may result in selective enforcement or prioritization of certain types of offenses over others.

c. Training and Accountability: Disparities in arrest procedures can stem from variations in training and accountability mechanisms within law enforcement agencies. Inadequate training on legal standards, bias recognition, and de-escalation techniques may contribute to improper or discriminatory arrests. Similarly, deficiencies in oversight and accountability mechanisms may fail to address misconduct or abuse of authority by law enforcement personnel.

d. Societal Attitudes and Cultural Factors: Societal attitudes towards crime, punishment, and law enforcement can shape arrest procedures and practices. Prejudices, stereotypes, and systemic inequalities may influence how individuals are perceived as suspects or treated by law enforcement authorities. Additionally, cultural factors such as mistrust of authorities or informal dispute resolution mechanisms may impact arrest-related outcomes.

e. Political Considerations: Political dynamics and priorities at the local, regional, or national levels can influence arrest procedures and enforcement strategies. Political pressure, public perception, and electoral considerations may influence law enforcement agencies’ approaches to crime prevention and control.

Implications of Discrepancies in Arrest Procedures

Discrepancies in arrest procedures can have far-reaching implications for individuals, communities, and the criminal justice system. Some of the key implications include:

a. Violations of Rights: Improper or discriminatory arrests may result in violations of individuals’ constitutional rights, including the right to due process, equal protection, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

b. Erosion of Trust: Inconsistencies in arrest procedures can undermine public trust and confidence in law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system. Communities disproportionately affected by discriminatory practices may perceive law enforcement as biased or illegitimate, leading to strained police-community relations.

c. Disparities in Justice: Discrepancies in arrest procedures may contribute to disparities in the administration of justice, particularly along racial, ethnic, or socio-economic lines. Marginalized communities may face disproportionate rates of arrest, incarceration, and criminalization, perpetuating cycles of disadvantage and inequality.

d. Legal Challenges: Inaccurate or improper arrests can result in legal challenges, including wrongful convictions, civil lawsuits, and miscarriages of justice. Excessive use of force, racial profiling, and other forms of misconduct may expose law enforcement agencies to legal liability and reputational damage.

e. Public Safety Concerns: Inadequate or ineffective arrest procedures may compromise public safety by failing to apprehend dangerous individuals or by targeting low-level offenses at the expense of more serious crimes. Discrepancies in enforcement priorities may also exacerbate community tensions and undermine efforts to address underlying social problems.

International Standards and Best Practices

International human rights instruments and standards provide guidance on arrest procedures and safeguards aimed at upholding fundamental rights and ensuring accountability. Key principles and best practices include:

a. Prohibition of Arbitrary Arrests: International law prohibits arbitrary arrests and emphasizes the importance of legal safeguards, including the right to be informed of the reasons for arrest and the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a competent authority.

b. Non-Discrimination and Equality: International standards emphasize the principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law, calling for impartial and non-discriminatory enforcement of criminal laws.

c. Use of Force and Restraints: International guidelines stress the importance of proportionality and necessity in the use of force during arrests, as well as the humane treatment of individuals in custody, including restrictions on the use of physical restraints.

d. Accountability and Oversight: International human rights mechanisms highlight the importance of accountability, transparency, and effective oversight mechanisms to prevent abuses of power and ensure accountability for misconduct by law enforcement personnel.

e. Gender-Sensitive Approaches: International standards recognize the specific vulnerabilities of women and emphasize the importance of gender-sensitive arrest procedures, including the involvement of female officers and safeguards against gender-based violence and discrimination.

Modifications and Amendments

  • The process of arrest is a critical juncture in the criminal justice system, where the rights of individuals must be carefully safeguarded to prevent abuse of power by law enforcement agencies.
  • Firstly, police officers must be required to explicitly state the justification for an arrest before carrying it out. This requirement not only ensures transparency but also aligns with the principles of reasonableness, fairness, and justice enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. By providing a clear rationale for the arrest, officers are held accountable for their actions and are less likely to engage in arbitrary or oppressive behavior.
  • Secondly, special provisions should be made to protect the dignity and rights of women during the arrest process. In situations where a female officer is unavailable, male officers should be prohibited from physically touching or confining women. Instead, alternative arrangements must be implemented, such as refraining from physical contact, using handcuffs sparingly, or involving another female officer to assist in confining the woman. Any deviation from these guidelines should result in severe penalties to deter misconduct and ensure the protection of women’s rights.
  • Thirdly, a person, even if suspected of an offense with the punishment of death or life imprisonment, cannot be killed only based on suspicion without any investigation, which is unjustified and unreasonable. The official can only use limited force as in other cases.
  • Fourthly, the judiciary should be given the power to assess the reasons and the justification behind the arrest and then order detention to the arrested persons to ensure that persons are not detained merely based on suspicions without proper and judicious justification or reason.
  • Finally, it should be stated that safeguards against arrested persons should be free from political influences. Every arrested person should get a fair chance to establish that they were not guilty in court and be protected from malicious arrests.
  • The protection of individual rights is paramount in any democratic society, and the criminal justice system plays a pivotal role in upholding these rights. To strengthen the protection of individual rights, the following amendments are proposed: Firstly, individuals suspected of crimes, regardless of the severity of the offense, should be entitled to due process and fair treatment under the law. This includes the right to legal representation, access to evidence, and a prompt and impartial trial. By safeguarding these fundamental rights, the criminal justice system can ensure that justice is served and innocent individuals are not unjustly deprived of their liberty. Secondly, no individual should be subjected to lethal force based solely on suspicion without due investigation. Even in cases where the alleged offense carries severe penalties such as death or life imprisonment, the use of force must be limited and proportionate. This principle not only upholds the sanctity of life but also prevents the abuse of power by law enforcement agencies.
  • Judicial oversight is essential to ensure that the powers vested in law enforcement agencies are exercised judiciously and in accordance with the law. To enhance judicial oversight, the following amendments are proposed: Firstly, the judiciary should be empowered to review the reasons and justifications behind arrests and subsequent detentions. This measure serves as a safeguard against arbitrary or unjustified arrests, ensuring that individuals are not deprived of their liberty without proper legal scrutiny. By granting the judiciary the authority to assess the legality of arrests, the criminal justice system can uphold the principles of fairness and justice. Secondly, the judiciary should play a more proactive role in monitoring the conduct of law enforcement agencies and ensuring compliance with constitutional principles and legal standards. This includes conducting regular audits of arrest procedures, investigating allegations of misconduct, and imposing sanctions on violators. By holding law enforcement agencies accountable for their actions, the judiciary can instil public confidence in the criminal justice system and prevent abuse of power.
  • The prevention of abuse of power by law enforcement agencies is essential to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of citizens. To prevent abuse of power, the following measures are proposed: Firstly, safeguards should be implemented to insulate the arrest process from political influences. Political interference in law enforcement not only undermines the independence of the judiciary but also erodes public trust in the criminal justice system. By ensuring that arrests are made based on legal considerations rather than political expediency, the system can maintain its integrity and impartiality. Secondly, stringent penalties should be imposed on law enforcement officers found guilty of abusing their authority or engaging in misconduct. This includes physical and sexual abuse, harassment, coercion, and other forms of misconduct. By holding violators accountable and imposing severe penalties, the criminal justice system can deter future abuses and protect the rights and dignity of all individuals.

Conclusion

Criminal Law has evolved over time in India and is progressing daily. Making proper and judicious amendments to it is necessary to make it further appealing to the interests of the citizens26. But more than making, it should be effectively and efficiently implemented and followed up by people in the Country. Therefore, it is necessary that these amendments are made, implemented, and followed in India to make it a safer and a better place to live with dignity and respect for everyone, including suspected criminals.

The proposed modifications and amendments to the Indian criminal justice system outlined in this essay represent a crucial step towards enhancing the fairness, transparency, and effectiveness of the system. By addressing key areas such as arrest procedures, protection of individual rights, judicial oversight, and prevention of abuse of power, these reforms seek to rectify longstanding shortcomings and bring the system closer to its ideal form.

In a democratic society, the criminal justice system serves as a cornerstone of governance, ensuring the rule of law and safeguarding the rights and freedoms of citizens. However, for the system to fulfill its mandate effectively, it must evolve in response to changing societal needs and values. The proposed reforms are designed to achieve this objective by promoting accountability, transparency, and respect for human dignity.

Firstly, by requiring police officers to justify arrests and adhere to principles of fairness and justice, the reforms seek to prevent arbitrary or oppressive conduct. By providing a clear rationale for arrests, officers are held accountable for their actions, fostering public trust and confidence in law enforcement agencies.

Secondly, by prioritizing the protection of individual rights, especially those of vulnerable groups such as women, the reforms aim to create a more inclusive and equitable justice system. By ensuring that women are treated with dignity and respect during the arrest process, the reforms seek to address longstanding issues of gender-based violence and discrimination.

Thirdly, by enhancing judicial oversight and accountability, the reforms seek to strengthen the checks and balances within the criminal justice system. By empowering the judiciary to review the legality of arrests and detentions, the reforms aim to prevent abuses of power and uphold the principles of due process and the rule of law.

Finally, by preventing abuse of power and insulating the arrest process from political influences, the reforms seek to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the criminal justice system. By imposing stringent penalties on law enforcement officers found guilty of misconduct, the reforms aim to deter future abuses and ensure that the rights and dignity of all individuals are protected. In conclusion, the proposed modifications and amendments to the Indian criminal justice system represent a significant opportunity to strengthen the rule of law, protect individual rights, and promote social justice. By implementing these reforms effectively and consistently, India can move closer to realizing its vision of a fair, transparent, and equitable society for all.

References

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948).
  • LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, 177th Law Commission Report on laws relating to Arrest (2001).
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 art 9, Can TS 1976 No 47 (entered into force 23 March 1976) [ICCPR].
  • LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, 268th Law Commission Report on Provisions relating to Bail (2017).
  •  THE NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, 3rd Report on recommendations of National Police Commission, http://humanrightsinitiative.org/old/publications/police/npc_recommendations.pdf
  • Final Report of Justice K.T. Thomas Committee (2010).
  • The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India).
  • Neha Rani & Shivam Sharan, Lacunae in Provision of Arrest: Need for Police Accountability and Reformation, (2018).

Footnotes

  1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948), Art. 7. ↩︎
  2. Dumbell v. Roberts, [1944] 1 All E.R. 326 C.A. ↩︎
  3. LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, 177th Law Commission Report on laws relating to Arrest (2001). ↩︎
  4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 art 9, Can TS 1976 No 47 (entered into force 23 March 1976) [ICCPR]. ↩︎
  5. LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, 268th Law Commission Report on Provisions relating to Bail (2017). ↩︎
  6. THE NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, 3rd Report on recommendations of National Police Commission, http://humanrightsinitiative.org/old/publications/police/npc_recommendations.pdf ↩︎
  7. Biswanath Bhattacharya v. Union of India, (2014) 4 S.C.C. 392. ↩︎
  8. Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 4 S.C.C. 647. ↩︎
  9. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948), Art. 5. ↩︎
  10. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 arts 9, Can TS 1976 No 47 art 7 (entered into force 23 March 1976) [ICCPR]. ↩︎
  11. Prakash Singh v. Union of India & ors., (2006) 8 S.C.C. 1. ↩︎
  12. Final Report of Justice K.T. Thomas Committee (2010). ↩︎
  13. Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 4 S.C.C. 260. ↩︎
  14. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 S.C.C. 273. ↩︎
  15. Dinkarrao Rajaram Pant v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 1655. ↩︎
  16. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 610. ↩︎
  17. Neelabati Bahera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 S.C.C. 746. ↩︎
  18. Tribhawan Singh v. Rex., A.I.R. 1949 Oudh. 74. ↩︎
  19. Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 4 S.C.C. 260. ↩︎
  20. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948), Art. 9. ↩︎
  21. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, § 3, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India). ↩︎
  22. Sheela Barse vs. State of Maharashtra, 1983 AIR 378. ↩︎
  23. State of Maharashtra vs. Christian Community Welfare Council of India, AIR 2004 SC 7. ↩︎
  24. Bharati S. Khandar vs. Maruti Govind Jadav, W.P. No. 453 of 2018. ↩︎
  25. Kavita Manikikar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation BS & FC and Ors., W.P. No. 1142 of 2018. ↩︎
  26. Neha Rani & Shivam Sharan, Lacunae in Provision of Arrest: Need for Police Accountability and Reformation, (2018). ↩︎

Related

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *