Karnataka HC: Police Arrest Safeguards Guidelines Violated

• The Karnataka High Court strongly criticized Whitefield Police for unlawfully arresting a man over a Facebook post celebrating a show cancellation.
• Police allegedly served a Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita notice after taking the individual into custody, contradicting legal procedure.
• Justice M. Nagaprasanna directed the Karnataka DG&IG to issue statewide guidelines ensuring strict police compliance with Supreme Court judgments on arrest safeguards.
• The court emphasized that police power is not absolute and officers violating procedures will face departmental inquiry and exemplary costs.
• The arrested individual was brought from Udupi to Bengaluru by police at 2 a.m., despite a notice allowing three days for his appearance.

The police power is not a charter for police absolutism, as is done in the case at hand.

The Karnataka High Court recently issued a strong condemnation of the Whitefield Police in Bengaluru following their handling of a man's arrest. The individual, Mohan Gowda, a leader of the Hindu Rashtra Samanvaya Samithi, was taken into custody concerning a social media post that celebrated the cancellation of a proposed comedy show by comedian Kunal Kamra at Uru, Whitefield. Gowda had previously submitted a representation to the Whitefield Police Station regarding the show, and after its cancellation, he posted on Facebook, declaring it a "victory for Hindu unity."

The police action, which the court found to be contrary to established arrest laws and the provisions of Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, stemmed from this Facebook post. The post was deemed by a Whitefield police constable to raise concerns of communal disharmony, leading to the invocation of Sections 217 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Notably, the court observed that there was no person claiming to be directly aggrieved by Gowda's post, with the police constable initiating the action.

The procedural irregularities were a key focus of the court's criticism. A Whitefield police constable traveled to Udupi at approximately 2 a.m. to bring Gowda to the Whitefield Police Station, where he was made to wait. A notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, which required him to appear three days later, was allegedly served only after he had already been secured and brought near the police station. The court highlighted that this notice, dated August 5 or 6, was used to take Gowda into custody three days prior to the fixed appearance date, directly contradicting the notice's own terms.

The Karnataka High Court did not mince words in its oral remarks and written observations, expressing profound disapproval of the police conduct. Justice M. Nagaprasanna questioned the urgency of the police traveling to Udupi when the notice itself granted Gowda three days to appear, asking, "What was the urgency in the meantime?" When police suggested Gowda had voluntarily agreed to come, the court responded with skepticism, stating, "Is this even believable, sir? Who will volunteer to say ‘Yes, I want to go to the police station’? That holy place."

The court emphasized that police power is not a license for absolutism, stating, "The uniform that an ordinary man would wear to become a policeman cannot by itself confer immunity from constitutional discipline." It underscored that every coercive power exercised by the police carries a corresponding obligation to be used fairly, reasonably, and for its intended purpose. The court further remarked that police themselves must now be 'policed,' highlighting a perceived pattern of the Whitefield Police Station violating the law "time and again." This judicial rebuke serves as a critical reminder of police power limits in India.

While the court stressed it was not protecting an accused from lawful investigation, its criticism centered on the blatant disregard for due process. The judge's comments highlighted the need for police to exercise restraint in certain cases, asserting that the uniform does not grant officers the liberty to act without constitutional discipline or to take citizens' freedom for granted.

In response to these grave procedural lapses, Justice M. Nagaprasanna issued a direct order to the Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG&IG) for Karnataka. This directive mandates the issuance of comprehensive guidelines to all police stations across the state. These guidelines are specifically designed to ensure strict compliance with Supreme Court judgments on arrest safeguards, thereby reinforcing the legal framework governing police actions.

The court's order also stipulated clear consequences for officers who fail to adhere to these legal mandates. Any police officer found to be violating the law in their arrest procedures could face departmental inquiry and be subject to exemplary costs. This measure aims to instill accountability and deter future instances of unlawful detention, ensuring that police compliance with established protocols, including Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 35(3), is rigorously enforced. This ruling sets a precedent for enhanced oversight of Karnataka HC police arrest safeguards guidelines, underscoring the judiciary's commitment to upholding fundamental rights.

Lawyers in Karnataka should monitor the upcoming guidelines from the DG&IG of Police regarding arrest procedures, as this ruling provides a strong basis to challenge unlawful detentions and ensure police compliance with Supreme Court safeguards. It underscores the need for strict adherence to Section 35(3) BNSS.

Source: Original reporting via news updates