High Court Orders Compensation for Man Arrested Under Repealed Law
CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJINAGAR: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled in favor of a man, Ashwinkumar Sanap (43), who was arrested under a law that has since been repealed. The court deemed the arrest “illegal” and a violation of Sanap’s rights to personal liberty, ordering both the complainant policeman and the investigating officer to pay compensation.
On October 23, the court ordered police inspector Narendra Padalkar to pay Rs 2 lakh and constable Pandit Tare to pay Rs 50,000 to the petitioner. Sanap’s legal representative, Bhushan Dhawale, revealed that Sanap was arrested on August 6 under Sections 66A and 66B of the Information Technology (IT) Act, despite Section 66A being declared unconstitutional in the landmark 2015 judgment of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India. The FIR, which was filed on June 27, 2024, also included Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a non-cognizable offense that requires a direct complaint to a magistrate.
Dhawale explained that the police realized the inapplicability of Sections 66A and 66B only after Sanap was arrested and presented to the magistrate. They subsequently added Section 67A of the IT Act.
The High Court division bench, which includes Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar, remarked that “this arrest was made at midnight, in total violation of the personal liberty enshrined under the Constitution of India.” They criticized Padalkar, stating it is “beyond imagination” that an investigating officer would not properly consider the relevant sections of the law prior to making an arrest.
The court described the realization of having invoked the wrong sections post-arrest as akin to a “suicide attempt” for the investigating officer, emphasizing that law enforcement must follow the law both before and during an arrest.
Moreover, the bench pointed out that the magistrate also failed to exercise due diligence when Sanap was presented for custody. Citing landmark decisions from the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, the High Court noted that both magistrates and investigating officers are obligated to assess the justification for an arrest before granting custody.
Highlighting issues of procedural negligence, the court stated that Sanap had been held despite the fact that “Section 67-A of the IT Act was not at all attracted, taking into consideration the facts of the case.” The division bench further noted that Tare had filed the FIR with “mala fide intention” stemming from a family dispute, as Sanap had separated from Tare’s sister and was alleged to have sent a defamatory WhatsApp message to a relative.
The court observed that WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted, meaning the sender cannot rightfully assume a private message will be public unless forwarded by the recipient.
Addressing concerns regarding judicial integrity, the High Court expressed disapproval of such practices, cautioning lower courts against “passing mechanical orders.” The court ordered a copy of the judgment to be sent to the superintendent of police in Hingoli for review and possible action in accordance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the Arnesh Kumar case.
