SUPREME COURT QUESTIONS ARREST QUASHING IN PANKAJ BANSAL CASE: "HOW CAN IT APPLY IF NOT RETROSPECTIVE?"

On June 26, the Supreme Court issued notice in a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Karnataka, raising a key legal question: whether the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which mandates that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) must provide written grounds of arrest to the accused—can be applied retrospectively, and whether it extends to arrests under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A bench comprising Justices KV Viswanathan and NK Singh observed that the issues raised in this case overlap with those pending in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, in which the judgment has already been reserved. The Court hinted that the forthcoming verdict in Mihir Shah may clarify key questions, including the legality of re-arrest in such situations.

Karnataka's plea challenges a Karnataka High Court judgment dated April 17, 2025, which quashed the arrest of an accused in a murder case on grounds that he was not provided with the written reasons for his arrest. The High Court relied on Pankaj Bansal and later judgments like Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, which emphasized the necessity of communicating arrest grounds in writing to uphold constitutional protections.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the State, argued that the Pankaj Bansal ruling should apply only prospectively. He cited the specific language in the judgment, particularly the term "henceforth" to support his view. He also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Kishor Arora v. Enforcement Directorate, which held that Pankaj Bansal does not have retrospective effect.

However, Justice Viswanathan expressed reservations about this interpretation. He pointed out that in Pankaj Bansal itself, the Supreme Court had quashed an arrest, implying a retrospective application. He said the word “henceforth” should be understood more as a caution or directive for future conduct, rather than a restriction on the temporal scope of the ruling. He further commented that a judicial decision cannot be interpreted rigidly, “like Euclid’s theorem,” and suggested that courts may still assess the validity of past arrests based on evolving constitutional standards.

During the hearing, the bench declined Luthra’s request to clarify that the Karnataka High Court's judgment should not serve as a precedent in other cases. Luthra had argued that many similar cases are pending before High Courts and that the impugned ruling could influence their outcomes. Acknowledging the potential impact, the Court scheduled the matter for further hearing on July 18, noting that the Mihir Shah decision would likely be relevant to the present case.

The background to the dispute involves the arrest of the respondent in March 2023 for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. He was remanded to judicial custody and later chargesheeted. In 2025, he approached the High Court seeking to quash the remand, claiming that the grounds for his arrest were neither disclosed meaningfully nor provided in writing. The High Court agreed, holding that the non-communication of arrest grounds violated Articles 13(2), 21, and 22(1) of the Constitution, and directed his release.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, Karnataka has argued that treating procedural lapses in disclosing arrest grounds as grounds for invalidating arrests could open the floodgates for numerous challenges and nullify legitimate prosecutions.

The case now awaits the decision in Mihir Shah, which is expected to settle whether Pankaj Bansal has retrospective application and how broadly its principles apply across criminal law.