Minor procedural lapses in arrests not to be seen with magnifying glass: Justice Trivedi

Even as the Supreme Court on Thursday introduced necessary safeguards and reinforcing judicial oversight over arrests under GST and Custom Acts, one of the judges on the bench, justice Bela M Trivedi, asserted that courts should not scrutinise minor procedural lapses by authorised officers with a “magnifying glass” when reviewing arrests under special statutes.

Justice Trivedi concurred with her colleagues on the bench, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and justice MM Sundreh, in ruling that the fundamental rights of individuals must be protected by ensuring strict adherence to the procedure established by law, but cautioned against excessive judicial interference during the investigations of cases under statutes such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Goods and Services Tax (GST) Acts, and Customs Act.

“Frequent or casual interference of the courts in the functioning of the authorised officers who have been specially conferred with the powers to combat the serious crimes, may embolden the unscrupulous elements to commit such crimes and may not do justice to the victims, who in such cases would be the society at large and the nation itself,” she held.

Stating that routine interventions could weaken enforcement and embolden offenders, justice Trivedi added: “With the advancement in technology, the very nature of crimes has become more and more intricate and complicated. Hence, minor procedural lapse on the part of authorised officers may not be seen with a magnifying glass by the courts in the exercise of judicial review, which may ultimately end up granting undue advantage or benefit to the person accused of very serious offences under the special Acts.”

According to justice Trivedi, arrests under special statutes are often a necessary tool in the investigation process, serving multiple investigative purposes, including securing crucial information from the accused, uncovering evidence, preventing the destruction of material facts, protecting witnesses and maintaining law and order.

“For these or such other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation,” observed the judge, stressing that courts must recognise the gravity of these offences and not obstruct the proper functioning of authorised officers enforcing such laws.

The judge underlined that offences under the PMLA, Customs Act or FERA are fundamentally different from ordinary crimes. “Such offences are against the society and against the nation at large and cannot be compared with ordinary offences committed against an individual, nor the accused in such cases be compared with the accused of ordinary crimes,” justice Trivedi maintained.

Also Read: SC permits liquor scam accused to withdraw pleas against PMLA

She made it clear that judicial review in such cases should be limited to ensuring compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards. Courts, according to justice Trivedi, should only examine whether the arresting officer was authorised under the relevant law; the officer had material evidence to form a “reason to believe” that the accused was guilty, and the arrested person was informed of the grounds for arrest as soon as possible.

However, she stressed that courts should not examine whether the material in possession of the officer was sufficient or adequate at the time of arrest. “Sufficiency or adequacy of material on the basis of which such belief is formed by the authorized officer would not be a matter of scrutiny by the courts at such a nascent stage of inquiry or investigation,” justice Trivedi wrote.

Justice Trivedi also warned against excessive judicial scrutiny of investigative processes, highlighting that courts should not apply the same parameters of judicial review used in service-related cases to arrests made under special laws.

“The scrutiny on the subjective opinion or satisfaction of the authorised officer to arrest the person could not be a matter of judicial review, inasmuch as when the arrest is made by the authorized officer on he having been satisfied about the alleged commission of the offences under the special Act, the matter would be at a very nascent stage of the investigation or inquiry,” she added.

Justice Trivedi emphasised that special statutes are enacted to address serious offenses, such as money laundering and financial crimes, which impact the nation’s financial stability and security. She underscored that a liberal interpretation of stringent provisions could weaken the effectiveness of these laws. “Any liberal approach in construing the stringent provisions of the Special Acts may frustrate the very purpose and objective of the Acts,” the judge held.

Summing up her position, justice Trivedi concluded that judicial review should be exercised only in cases of “manifest arbitrariness or gross violation or non-compliance” of statutory safeguards, and not in a manner that could amount to “judicial overreach, undermining the powers of the statutory authorities.”