Case at a Glance
A 28-year-old advocate went to meet the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, in January 1994 and did not come home for five days; his family could not even find out where he was. Hearing a habeas corpus petition, the Supreme Court used the episode to restate a basic principle: the existence of a power to arrest is one thing, the justification for using it is another. The Court held that an arrested person has a right, flowing from Articles 21 and 22(1), to have a friend or relative told of the arrest and the place of detention, and directed police and magistrates to enforce it. The Court also asked officers to record the reasons for every arrest in the case diary.
The petitioner, Joginder Kumar, was 28 years old, held an LL.B. and was enrolled as an advocate. According to the judgment, he appeared before the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ghaziabad, on 7 January 1994 at about 10 a.m. and was kept in custody. When his relatives went looking for him on 9 January 1994, they learnt he had been taken to an undisclosed place. A habeas corpus petition reached the Supreme Court, and on 14 January 1994 the SSP appeared with the petitioner.
The SSP’s explanation was that the petitioner had not been in detention at all: the police had only taken his help in detecting some abduction cases, and he had cooperated. The Court found that this left the central question unanswered — why a young lawyer had been held for five days — and directed the District Judge, Ghaziabad, to hold a detailed enquiry and report within four weeks. It then turned to the larger issue the case exposed: routine, unexplained arrests.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is a police officer justified in arresting a person merely because the law gives him the power to do so, and what rights does an arrested person have to let the outside world know where he is?
Power to Arrest Is Not the Same as Justification to Arrest
The Court drew on the Third Report of the National Police Commission, which it recorded as finding that nearly 60% of arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified, and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2% of the expenditure of jails. Against that background, the Bench held that “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so.” An officer must be able to justify the arrest — a reasonable satisfaction, after some investigation, about the genuineness of the complaint and the need to deprive the person of liberty. In the Court’s words, “No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person,” and “A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence.” “Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided” if a notice to the person to attend the police station and not leave without permission would do.
The Court looked abroad for models, referring to the English Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (including the right of a detained person to have someone informed), the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, and United States cases such as Miranda v. Arizona, along with its own earlier decision in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1978) 04 SC CK 0011. Turning to “the right to have someone informed”, it held that “These rights are inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution” and must be protected. It then laid down practical requirements: the arrested person may have a friend, relative or other known person told of the arrest and place of detention; the police must tell the arrested person of this right on arrival at the station; an entry must be made in the diary of who was informed; and the magistrate before whom the person is produced must satisfy himself that these requirements were met. The Court said these requirements apply until legal provisions are made and are not exhaustive.
What the Court Actually Held
- The existence of a power to arrest is one thing; the justification for exercising it is quite another. “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so.”
- An arrested person in custody is entitled, if he so requests, to have one friend, relative or other known person informed, as far as practicable, of the arrest and where he is detained; these rights are inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1).
- The police must inform the arrested person of this right when he is brought to the station, record in the diary who was informed, and the magistrate must satisfy himself that these requirements have been complied with.
- A police officer making an arrest should record the reasons for it in the case diary, and the Directors General of Police were asked to issue instructions accordingly; the District Judge, Ghaziabad, was directed to enquire into the petitioner’s detention and report within four weeks.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shifted the focus from whether the police can arrest to whether they should, a principle later developed in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 12 SC CK 0089 and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 07 SC CK 0068.
- The right to have a relative or friend told of the arrest — now routine in arrest memos — was given constitutional footing here.
- It made magistrates gatekeepers: at first production, they must check that the arrested person’s family or friend has been informed.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Families of Arrested Persons
- You are entitled to be told that a family member has been arrested and where he or she is held, if the arrested person asks for you to be informed.
- If someone is held without any record or information, a habeas corpus petition can be filed in the High Court or Supreme Court.
- Ask the magistrate, at first production, whether the intimation requirements were complied with.
For Counsel
- Cite Joginder Kumar to question arrests made without recorded reasons, particularly for offences that are not heinous.
- Check the station diary entry showing who was informed of the arrest; its absence is a point for the remand hearing.
- Pair it with D.K. Basu and Arnesh Kumar when challenging routine or retaliatory arrests.
Key Takeaways
- A lawful power to arrest does not by itself justify an arrest; the officer must be able to explain why arrest was necessary.
- The right to have someone informed of the arrest and place of detention flows from Articles 21 and 22(1).
- Police must tell the arrested person of this right and record who was informed; the magistrate must check compliance.
- Reasons for arrest should be recorded in the case diary.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the police have to inform my family if I am arrested?
Under Joginder Kumar, an arrested person is entitled, on request, to have a friend, relative or other known person informed of the arrest and the place of detention, as far as practicable. The police must tell the arrested person about this right and record who was informed.
Can the police arrest someone just because a complaint has been made?
The Court said no arrest should be made in a routine manner merely on an allegation, and that a person is not liable to arrest merely on suspicion. The officer should be reasonably satisfied, after some investigation, about the genuineness of the complaint and the need for arrest.
What happened to the petitioner in this case?
He was produced before the Court by the SSP. The Court found the explanation for his five-day custody unsatisfactory and ordered the District Judge, Ghaziabad, to hold a detailed enquiry and report within four weeks.
Conclusion
Joginder Kumar began with one young advocate who disappeared into police custody for five days, and ended with a rule that applies to every arrest in India: the power to arrest must be matched by a reason to arrest, and the person arrested must not simply vanish from the world. Three decades on, the judgment remains the starting point for any argument about unnecessary arrests and the duty to tell families where their loved ones are.
Practical takeaway: At every remand hearing, check two things the Court made non-negotiable — recorded reasons for the arrest in the case diary, and a diary entry showing that a friend or relative was informed of the arrest and place of detention.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com