When Arrest Becomes A Constitutional Event: Reassessing Procedural Fairness Under Section 19 PMLA
Shelly, MERI Professional and Law Institute
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 (Supreme Court of India, decided on 3 October 2023).
ABSTRACT
The power of arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) raises significant concerns concerning individual liberty and procedural fairness. The Supreme Court’s decision in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244, marked an important development in Indian arrest jurisprudence by holding that an arrested person must be furnished with written grounds of arrest as a matter of course and without exception. The judgment located the procedural requirements of Section 19 of the PMLA within the constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, emphasising that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful and capable of enabling the arrested person to understand and challenge the deprivation of liberty. The Court further rejected the proposition that a subsequent order of judicial remand can retrospectively cure an unlawful arrest.
This paper critically examines the constitutional and procedural significance of Pankaj Bansal, with particular focus on the meaning and communication of the “grounds of arrest,” the role of judicial remand, and the balance between investigative secrecy and the accused’s right to information. It analyses the judgment alongside Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, V. Senthil Balaji and the subsequent decision in Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, which clarified the prospective application of the written-copy requirement. The paper also considers the wider constitutional implications of the decision through its later application in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) and draws a comparative perspective from Article 9(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 5(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. It argues that Pankaj Bansal represents more than a procedural requirement concerning documentation; it strengthens the principle that coercive state power must be exercised through transparent, reasoned and judicially reviewable procedures. The paper concludes by proposing greater standardisation in the drafting and redaction of grounds of arrest and stronger judicial scrutiny at the remand stage.
