1). Supreme Court: Arrest Illegal If Reasons Not Disclosed, Bail Must Be Granted Despite Statutory Restrictions As It Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India 

Case Background

In this case, the  Appellant (Vihaan Kumar) was arrested by the police without being informed of the reasons for his arrest, which is a violation of Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution. The police, however, claimed that they had complied with the legal requirement by recording details of the arrest in the arrest memo, remand report, and case diary and by informing the Appellant’s wife about the arrest.

The Appellant challenged his arrest before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, arguing that he was not told why he was being arrested. However, the High Court rejected his claim and upheld the arrest. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether failure to inform an arrested person about the reasons for their arrest violates their fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution.
2. Does informing a relative (e.g., wife) about an arrest fulfil the constitutional requirement of informing the arrested person of the reasons for their arrest under Article 22(1)?
3. Whether non-compliance with procedural safeguards, including Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), affects the legality of an arrest.
4. Whether courts have the power to grant bail even in cases with statutory restrictions if there is a violation of fundamental rights.
5. Can the mention of arrest details in the remand report, arrest memo, or case diary be considered compliance with Article 22(1)?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and N. Kotiswar Singh delivered separate but concurring judgments on the matter.

Key Observations by Justice Abhay S. Oka

• Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution guarantees that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for their arrest. This information must be communicated clearly, in a language they understand, and in a manner that ensures they fully comprehend the reasons for their detention.
• If an arrested person claims that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest, the burden of proof lies on the investigating agency to show compliance with Article 22(1).
• Failure to inform the accused of the grounds for arrest violates not only Article 22(1) but also Article 21, which guarantees the right to personal liberty. Such a violation makes the arrest itself invalid.
• A magistrate, when granting remand (custody), has a duty to verify whether the accused was properly informed of their arrest grounds. If there is non-compliance, the court must order the immediate release of the accused.
• Even if there are statutory restrictions on granting bail (such as in serious offenses), these do not override constitutional violations. If the court finds that Article 21 and Article 22(1) have been violated, it has the power to grant bail.

Key Observations by Justice N. Kotiswar Singh

• In addition to Article 22(1), Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) requires police officers to inform a nominated person (friend, relative, or any other person chosen by the accused) about the arrest and the place of detention.
• The purpose of this provision is to prevent custodial abuse, ensure access to legal recourse, and avoid instances of illegal detention or disappearance. 
• Informing a relative is not a substitute for informing the arrested person: The Court held that telling a relative (such as a wife) about the arrest does not fulfil the constitutional requirement. The right under Article 22(1) is a personal right of the arrestee, and it is mandatory to directly inform them of the grounds for their arrest.
• Failure to comply with Section 50 CrPC can also vitiate (invalidate) an arrest.

Other Observations Made by Supreme Court w.r.t. Mention of Arrest Details in the Remand Report, Arrest Memo, or Case Diary be Considered Compliance with Article 22(1)

• Arrest memo and remand report do not contain the reasons for arrest: The Court examined the arrest memo and noted that it only recorded basic details such as the name of the arrested person, their address, FIR details, time and place of arrest, and the name of the arresting officer. However, it did not mention the specific reasons for the arrest, which is a separate and necessary requirement under Article 22(1).

• Mentioning grounds of arrest in police records is not enough: The Court rejected the argument that mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report or case diary is sufficient. It emphasized that these are internal police records and do not ensure that the arrested person actually understands the reasons for their detention.

• Delayed claim of compliance is an afterthought: The police relied on a case diary entry dated June 10, 2024, claiming that it recorded compliance with Article 22(1). However, the Court found that this argument was never raised before the High Court and was brought up only later as an afterthought. The Court refused to accept this as valid evidence of compliance.

Court Ruling / Decision

• The Supreme Court overturned the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision and held that Vihaan Kumar’s arrest was illegal as he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest.
• The Court ordered his immediate release, emphasizing that failure to comply with constitutional and legal safeguards renders an arrest unlawful.

Legal Provisions

1. Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to personal liberty.
2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution – Right of an arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest.
3. Section 50 of CrPC – Duty of police to inform relatives or nominated persons about an individual’s arrest and place of detention. (Section 47 of BNSS)

Significance of the Judgment

• Strengthens constitutional protections for arrested individuals by ensuring that they are informed of their rights.
• Reinforces judicial oversight by making it mandatory for magistrates to verify compliance with Article 22(1) before granting remand.
• Limits arbitrary arrests by placing the burden of proof on the investigating agencies.
• Ensures that violations of fundamental rights override statutory restrictions on bail, thereby prioritising personal liberty.

This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court reinforces that informing an arrested person of the grounds of their arrest is not just a legal formality but a fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It also clarifies that courts have the power to grant bail or release an individual if these rights are violated, regardless of statutory restrictions. Additionally, the ruling highlights the importance of compliance with Section 50 CrPC, ensuring that the arrest and detention process remains transparent and accountable.

Case Name: VIHAAN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR, SLP(Crl) No. 13320/2024

2). Karnataka High Court: Quashing Criminal Cases Based On Witness Statement Under S.482 CrPC Requires Exceptional Circumstances 

Case Background

This case involves former Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa, who has been accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl in February 2023 at his residence in Bengaluru. The complaint was filed by the victim's mother under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Yediyurappa approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him, arguing that the statements recorded during the investigation (under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC) support his case and that continuing the trial would be an abuse of the legal process.

The prosecution, however, opposed the plea, arguing that there is strong evidence against Yediyurappa, including a recorded conversation between him and the victim's mother, which was forensically verified to contain his voice. They contended that these matters should be decided in a full trial and not at this stage.

Issues in the Case

1. Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings based on statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC?
2. Are there rare and exceptional circumstances in this case that justify quashing the proceedings?
3. Should the case proceed to trial for a full examination of the evidence?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court.

Key Observations by the Court

• Statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC can be considered in rare and exceptional cases
  • The Court clarified that statements made during the investigation cannot be completely ignored while deciding whether to quash proceedings.
  • However, these statements can only be relied upon in rare and exceptional circumstances, where continuing the case would result in an abuse of law or miscarriage of justice.
• This case does not meet the criteria for quashing
  • The Court noted that there are contradictory statements from different witnesses.
  • The victim has given a clear and detailed account of the alleged incident.
  • Since the case involves statement vs. statement, it is not appropriate to decide at this stage which one outweighs the other.
• The matter must go to trial
  • The Court ruled that no miscarriage of justice is evident in the proceedings so far.
  • The allegations are serious, and the trial court is the proper forum to examine the evidence, hear witnesses, and decide the case on merits.

Court Ruling / Decision

• The High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings against Yediyurappa.
• However, it set aside the cognizance order passed by the Magistrate and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.
• The case will proceed to trial, where both parties will have the opportunity to present evidence and arguments.

Legal Provisions

1. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act – The primary law under which Yediyurappa has been charged.
2. Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Statements made to the police during an investigation. These statements are not admissible as evidence in court but can be used to assist in the investigation. (Section 180 of BNSS)
3. Section 164 of the CrPC – Statements recorded before a Magistrate, which hold greater evidentiary value than Section 161 statements (Section 183 of BNSS)
4. Section 482 of the CrPC – Gives High Courts the power to quash criminal proceedings if they are found to be an abuse of legal process or would result in miscarriage of justice. (Section 528 of BNSS)

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies the scope of High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC – The judgment reiterates that quashing cases based on statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC is only permitted in rare cases.
• Reinforces the importance of fair trials – The ruling ensures that serious cases, especially those under POCSO, should be decided through a full trial rather than being dismissed prematurely.
• Sets a precedent for handling conflicting statements – When witness statements contradict each other, the case should proceed to trial, where the court can properly evaluate all evidence.

The Karnataka High Court's decision ensures that due legal process is followed in cases of sexual assault allegations. By refusing to quash the proceedings, the Court has upheld the principle that all evidence must be thoroughly examined in a full trial before arriving at a judgment. This ruling serves as a reminder that High Courts should exercise their power to quash proceedings only in exceptional cases, not as a shortcut to dismiss serious allegations.

Case Name: BS Yediyurappa v/s The Criminal Investigating Department CID 

Case No: WP 15522/2024

3). Orissa High Court: Magistrate Must Hear Police on Refusal to Register FIR Before Ordering Investigation Under Section 175(3) BNSS

Case Background

In this case, the petitioner had lodged an FIR, but the police refused to register it. Aggrieved by this, she directly approached the Orissa High Court seeking a direction to the police to register the FIR.

The High Court, however, observed that the petitioner should have first approached the jurisdictional Magistrateinstead of coming directly to the High Court. The Court clarified that under the new criminal law regime, certain procedures must be followed before ordering an investigation in cases where an FIR is not registered.

Issues in the Case

1. Can an aggrieved person directly approach the High Court for non-registration of FIR?
2. What is the proper legal procedure to be followed when an FIR is not registered by the police?
3. What are the key differences between the old and new legal provisions regarding Magistrate-ordered investigations?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by Justice Gourishankar Satapathy of the Orissa High Court.

Key Observations by the Court

• A person cannot directly approach the High Court for non-registration of FIR
  • The Court emphasized that if the police refuse to register an FIR, the aggrieved person must first approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
  • If the complaint is still not addressed, the person must then approach the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, providing a copy of the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, supported by an affidavit.
• Magistrate must hear the police before ordering an investigation
  • The Court clarified that before passing an order for investigation, the Magistrate must:
    1. Consider the application supported by an affidavit from the complainant.
    2. Hear the submissions of the police officer who refused to register the FIR.
    3. Conduct a proper inquiry, if necessary, before directing an investigation.
• Clarifications from Supreme Court precedents
  • The Court relied on Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., where the Supreme Court held that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 CrPC for non-registration of FIR. Instead, the proper remedy lies before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.
  • Similarly, in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Ors., the Supreme Court reiterated that the Magistrate must be approached first before seeking High Court intervention.
• Changes in the law under BNSS
  • The Court referred to the recent Supreme Court decision in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, which highlighted three major changes under Section 175(3) BNSS (compared to Section 156(3) CrPC):
    1. Mandatory application to the Superintendent of Police before approaching the Magistrate.
    2. Magistrate can conduct an inquiry before directing an investigation.
    3. Magistrate must hear the police officer’s reasons for refusing the FIR before passing an order.

Court Ruling / Decision

• The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner should have first approached the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS instead of coming directly to the High Court.
• However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate forum (Magistrate) to seek relief.

Legal Provisions

1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
   • Section 173(4) BNSS – Requires an aggrieved person to first apply to the Superintendent of Police if an FIR is refused. (Section 154(4)of CrPC)
   • Section 175(3) BNSS – Empowers the Magistrate to order an investigation, provided the complainant submits an affidavit and a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police. The Magistrate must hear the police officer’s submissions and conduct an inquiry if needed.
2. Earlier Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
   • Section 156(3) CrPC – Allowed Magistrates to order investigations but did not require hearing the police officer’s reasons before doing so.

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies the procedure under BNSS – The ruling ensures that Magistrates apply their judicial mind and consider both the complainant’s and police officer’s submissions before ordering an investigation.
• Limits High Court intervention in non-registration of FIR cases – The decision reinforces the principle that High Courts should not entertain direct petitions in such matters, and Magistrates must be approached first.
• Ensures fair procedure for ordering investigations – By requiring an affidavit and prior application to the Superintendent of Police, the ruling prevents misuse of the legal process and ensures that investigations are ordered only when necessary.

The Orissa High Court’s ruling ensures that proper legal procedures are followed when an FIR is not registered by the police. By making it mandatory for the Magistrate to hear the police officer’s submissions and conduct an inquiry before ordering an investigation, the judgment strengthens fairness and prevents misuse of legal remedies. The decision also reinforces that aggrieved persons must first approach the Magistrate under BNSS instead of filing direct petitions in the High Court.

Case Name: Swarnalata Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No: CRLMP No. 1633 of 2024

4). Madras High Court: No Bar On Court to Entertain Multiple Applications Under Section 29A of Arbitration Act 

Case Background

In this case, an application was filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

Initially, the Arbitrator directed the applicant to seek an extension of the tribunal’s mandate, which was granted for one year by the court. However, the respondent opposed the extension, stating that they could not participate in the proceedings and requested the Arbitrator to halt the matter until their recall application was decided.

The High Court later dismissed the recall application but allowed the respondent to seek reopening of evidence before the Arbitrator. The matter was adjourned, and the respondent was directed to file an affidavit by January 1, 2025.

Since the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was set to expire on January 5, 2025, the Arbitrator again directed the applicant to file an extension application under Section 29A for an additional six months.

The respondent objected, arguing that the applicant could file only one application under Section 29A and that the current application was not maintainable.

Issues in the Case

1. Can multiple applications be filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act for extending the arbitrator’s mandate?
2. Is there any legal restriction on the number of times a party can seek an extension of time?
3. What is the requirement for granting an extension under Section 29A?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by Justice Abdul Quddhose of the Madras High Court.

Key Observations by the Court

• Section 29A does not prohibit multiple extension applications
  • The Court held that the Arbitration Act does not impose any restriction on the number of times an extension application can be filed.
  • As long as sufficient cause is demonstrated, a party can seek multiple extensions.
• Courts should not impose additional restrictions
  • The Court observed that if the legislature intended to restrict multiple applications under Section 29A, it would have explicitly mentioned it in the law.
  • Imposing such a restriction through judicial interpretation would result in unfair and unjust consequences.
• Delays caused by the respondent justified the extension request
  • The Court noted that the respondent’s conduct had delayed the arbitration proceedings, making it impossible for the Arbitrator to pronounce an award within the given time.
  • Since the delay was not the applicant’s fault, denying an extension would be unfair.
• A strict interpretation of Section 29A should be avoided
  • A narrow interpretation of Section 29A that restricts the number of applications would lead to injustice.
  • Courts must consider the facts and circumstances of each case before deciding on an extension request.

Court Ruling / Decision

• The Madras High Court allowed the extension application, stating that the applicant had shown sufficient causefor seeking an extension.
• The Court reaffirmed that multiple applications under Section 29A are legally permissible, as long as the applicant can justify the request.

Legal Provisions

1. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
   • Section 29A(4) – Allows the court to extend the time limit for an arbitral award.
   • Section 29A(5) – Empowers the court to extend the arbitrator’s mandate if sufficient cause is shown.

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies the scope of Section 29A – The ruling establishes that multiple extension applications are not barred under law.
• Ensures fairness in arbitration proceedings – The judgment protects parties from delays caused by the opposing party and ensures that arbitrators have enough time to deliver a fair decision.
• Prevents unjust penalties – By allowing multiple applications, the Court avoids penalising parties due to circumstances beyond their control.

The Madras High Court has clarified that there is no legal restriction on filing multiple applications under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act to extend the mandate of an Arbitrator. As long as sufficient cause is shown, the court has the power to grant an extension. This judgment ensures fairness in arbitration and prevents unnecessary obstacles in the dispute resolution process.

Case Name: M/s.Powergear Limited, Chennai. Vs. M/s.Anu Consultants, Hyderabad

Case Number: Application No.101 of 2025 

5). Next Friend of Minor Under Order 32 of CPC Not Required to Be a Legal Guardian Under Section 4(b) Of Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act: Orissa High Court

Case Background

The case arose from a motor accident compensation claim where the petitioner’s father was injured in a road accident in 2016 and later became permanently disabled. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), and in April 2022, the tribunal awarded him ₹3,60,400 with 7% interest.

However, before the award was passed, the petitioner’s father died in December 2021, and the mother also passed away in July 2022. This left only the petitioner (his younger married daughter) and her minor niece (daughter of her pre-deceased elder sister) as his legal heirs.

To claim the compensation amount, the petitioner filed a substitution petition before the MACT in October 2022 to include herself and her minor niece as legal representatives. However, the tribunal rejected the substitution request in November 2022.

In January 2023, the petitioner again filed a recall petition, this time acting as the ‘next friend’ of her minor niece, since the niece’s father (natural guardian) was alive but did not represent her. However, the tribunal rejected this request again, raising doubts about whether the petitioner could act as ‘next friend’ while the minor’s father was still alive.

Aggrieved by the partial rejection, the petitioner approached the Orissa High Court.

Issues in the Case

1. Does Order XXXII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) apply to proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act?
2. Can the petitioner act as the 'next friend' of her minor niece under Order XXXII of the CPC, even when the minor’s father (natural guardian) is alive?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra of the Orissa High Court.

Key Observations by the Court

1. Applicability of CPC to Motor Vehicle Claims

• The Court referred to Rule 32 of the Odisha Motor Vehicles (Accident Claims Tribunal) Rules, 2019, which states that the Claims Tribunal shall exercise all the powers of a Civil Court and follow CPC procedures in claim cases.
• Therefore, Order XXXII of the CPC applies to motor vehicle accident compensation proceedings.

2. Who Can Be a ‘Next Friend’ Under Order XXXII CPC?

• The Court examined Order XXXII Rule 1 & 4 of CPC, which states that a minor must be represented by a ‘next friend’ in a suit.
• Rule 4(1) states that any person of sound mind and majority can act as ‘next friend’ or guardian, as long as their interest is not adverse to the minor.
• The next friend does not have to be a legally appointed guardian under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

3. Can a Minor’s Father Be Bypassed in Next Friend Appointment?

• The Claims Tribunal had objected to the petitioner acting as the ‘next friend’ because the minor’s father was alive.
• The Court rejected this reasoning, stating that CPC does not require a next friend to be the minor’s natural guardian.
• A next friend acts for the minor’s benefit, regardless of whether a legal guardian is present.
• Supreme Court precedents were cited, including:
  • Nagaiah v. Chowdamma – held that a person can act as a ‘next friend’ without court permission.
  • N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam M/S General Insurance Co. Ltd. – clarified that a legal representative includes all persons suffering due to a person’s death.

Court Ruling / Decision

• The High Court set aside the Claims Tribunal’s rejection of the petitioner’s request to act as next friend.
• It ruled that the petitioner is competent to represent her minor niece as ‘next friend’ and that no special permission from the court is required.
• The Claims Tribunal was directed to proceed with the claims case and allow the petitioner to act on behalf of her minor niece.

Legal Provisions

1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908
   • Order XXXII Rule 1 – Requires minors to be represented by a ‘next friend’ in legal cases.
   • Order XXXII Rule 4(1) – Any adult of sound mind can act as next friend unless they have an interest adverse to the minor.
2. Odisha Motor Vehicles (Accident Claims Tribunal) Rules, 2019
   • Rule 32 – Gives Claims Tribunals the same powers as Civil Courts and mandates compliance with CPC procedures.
3. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
   • Section 4(b) – Defines who qualifies as a guardian, but does not restrict representation under CPC.

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies the scope of ‘next friend’ in legal cases – A next friend does not have to be a legally appointed guardian under the Guardianship Act.
• Expands protection for minors in legal proceedings – Ensures that minors are not deprived of their legal rights due to technical objections.
• Strengthens applicability of CPC in motor accident claims – Confirms that Order XXXII applies to proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act.
• Removes unnecessary barriers to accessing compensation – Prevents courts from blocking rightful claims based on rigid interpretations of law.

The Orissa High Court ruled that a ‘next friend’ under CPC does not need to be a legally appointed guardian. In motor accident claim cases, any person acting in the best interests of a minor can be appointed as next friend. Since the petitioner had no adverse interest, she was competent to represent her minor niece. The Court allowed the substitution and directed the Claims Tribunal to proceed with the case accordingly.

Case Name: Kabita Nath v. National Insurance Company Ltd., Cuttack & Anr.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 6144 of 2023