NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea filed by the Karnataka government challenging a Karnataka High Court ruling which applied the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India (2024) retrospectively. The ruling in Pankaj Bansal mandates that written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the accused at the time of arrest. The key issue raised is whether this principle can be applied to arrests made before the judgment was pronounced.
A bench of Justices K.V. Vishwanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh, after hearing senior advocate Sidharth Luthra and advocate D.L. Chidananda representing the State of Karnataka, observed,
“We are of the opinion that the matter requires consideration.”
The counsel for Karnataka also highlighted that in another matter, the Supreme Court had already reserved judgment on April 22, 2025, on a broader question: Whether, in all cases—including those arising under the Indian Penal Code—it is mandatory to furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused either before or immediately after arrest.
Additionally, the apex court is examining a connected issue:
“Whether, even in exceptional cases, where on account of certain exigencies it will not be possible to furnish the grounds of arrest either before arrest or immediately after arrest, the arrest itself would be vitiated on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
The bench also acknowledged that the outcome of the yet-to-be-pronounced judgment will directly impact the case at hand.
“The outcome of this judgment will have a bearing on finally deciding this matter,” the Court observed.
Advocate Luthra pointed out that numerous similar cases are currently pending before the High Court, where the impugned order could potentially be cited as a precedent. Owing to the urgency of the issue, the bench listed the matter for detailed consideration on July 18, 2025, and issued notice to the respondents—Hemanth Datta alias Hemantha alias Baby and another.
Karnataka Government’s Challenge
In its petition, the State of Karnataka has contested the Karnataka High Court’s final judgment dated April 17, 2025, arguing that the High Court erroneously applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Pankaj Bansal retrospectively. The state contended that the High Court wrongly held that arrests made prior to October 3, 2023, can be challenged for non-service of written grounds of arrest.
The petition asserted:
“The High Court has failed to take note of the declaration of law made in para 45 of the judgment in Pankaj Bansal case, wherein it is specifically stated that ‘it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception’.”
In simpler terms, the Karnataka government is arguing that the requirement to provide written grounds of arrest was intended to apply prospectively, i.e., from the date of the judgment onward—not to arrests made in the past.
Conflict With Another SC Ruling
The Karnataka government further submitted that the High Court’s view is inconsistent with a subsequent ruling by the Supreme Court in Ram Kishor Arora vs Enforcement Directorate (2024). In that decision, the top court had considered whether the Pankaj Bansal judgment should apply retrospectively or prospectively.
The state emphasized that the Supreme Court had already clarified in Ram Kishor Arora that:
“Non-furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal case could neither be held to be illegal nor the action of the officer concerned in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with.”
Legal Significance
The case raises significant questions about the temporal application of constitutional protections concerning arrests. The outcome will directly impact how procedural rights, especially concerning arrest, are to be implemented going forward—and whether past arrests can be invalidated based on the Pankaj Bansal ruling.
With the matter now listed for hearing on July 18, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court’s decision, which may settle once and for all whether such procedural safeguards are to be applied retrospectively and reshape arrest jurisprudence under Indian criminal law.
