Larger questions surrounding personal liberty and the legal safeguards available to citizens against illegal arrests without a warrant have come into renewed focus in Kerala with the recent “illegal” arrest of Dr. Kodanda Ram, a former faculty member at the Dental College, Anjarakandy, Kannur.

Dr. Ram was arraigned as an accused in the case booked in connection with the alleged suicide of Nithin Raj, a first-year BDS student, on April 10, 2026. Dr. Ram, who went into hiding for 101 days after being slapped with the provisions of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was arrested by the police and produced before the Sessions Court, Thalassery, recently.

However, M. Manoj, the Principal Sessions Judge, set the accused at liberty after finding that Mr. Ram was arrested by the police “in complete disregard” of the Constitutional provisions and the safeguards for personal liberty set by the Supreme Court.

The violations of the mandatory provisions and fundamental rights prescribed by the Constitution in the case came to light on an interaction of the sessions judge with the accused.

The accused, when asked whether he was informed about the grounds of arrest, told the court that he was arrested because the student committed suicide. The lawyers for the accused also informed the court that the police had not conveyed the grounds of arrest, and that he was not provided with the reasons for the arrest in writing, as stipulated by the Supreme Court in a few landmark judgments.

The absence of the mandatory compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing breached the fundamental rights of the accused and violated the legal safeguards against illegal arrest, as provided by the apex court, observed the trial court, while ordering him to be released forthwith. The police, which released him from custody, subsequently arrested him, after apparently providing him in writing the reasons for the arrest.

The court found that the information provided to the accused about the reasons and grounds for the arrest was also insufficient. The reasons were merely mentioned as: “the accused had committed a serious offence and the anticipatory bail of the accused was rejected by the Supreme Court,” which were grossly inadequate and failed to uphold the spirit of the apex court order, the trial court found.

The non-compliance of the constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or detention being rendered illegal, the trial court held, while quoting elaborately from the judgments of the apex court.

In one of the landmark judgments, the apex court held that the grounds of detention should be “effectively and fully communicated to the arrestee in the manner in which he will fully understand the same.” The court further explained that the “grounds of arrest must be informed in a language which the arrestee understands.”

In yet another case, the court held that the “mode of conveying the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose.” The effective and full communication of reasons for the arrest is also required for the arrestee to exercise his constitutional right, as specified in Article 22 (1) “to consult an advocate of his choice and the right to be defended by an advocate. If the grounds of arrest are not communicated to the arrestee, as soon as may be, he will not be able to effectively exercise the right to consult an advocate,” the court pointed out.

Fundamental right to liberty

The fundamental right to liberty, guaranteed under Article 21, gets curtailed when a person is arrested. “When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested. That is why the mode of conveying information of the grounds must be meaningful so as to serve the objects stated above” and the requirement of “informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement,” the sessions judge noted, referring to the apex court verdicts.

The court further cited a Supreme Court verdict that “if the grounds of arrest are not informed immediately after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22 (1) and deprivation of the arrestee of his personal liberty.”

If there is a “failure to comply with the requirement of informing the grounds of arrest soon, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second,” the court observed.

The sessions court also went harsh on the investigating officer in the case with its observations that the “investigating officer, who arrested the accused, has disregarded the directions of the Supreme Court of India, which mandates furnishing the grounds of arrest and reasons for arrest to the accused in a meaningful manner and which is his constitutional right.”

The omissions on the part of the investigating officer amounted to disregarding the directions of the Supreme Court and dereliction of duty, observed the sessions judge. The court also ordered a notice to the investigation officer to explain why the Supreme Court guidelines of informing reasons for arrest and grounds of arrest were not complied with in letter and spirit in the case.

Meanwhile, Justice A. Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court has sought a report from the trial court regarding the developments, while expressing concern in the manner in which the police had arrested the accused. The judge has also sought the personal appearance of the police officials concerned before the court on Friday (July 24, 2026).

Published - July 23, 2026 03:07 pm IST