#Constitutional Safeguards

The court quashed an ASI's dismissal, ruling that unsubstantiated fears of witness influence cannot bypass a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b). The petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits but not back wages, while the department retains the option to initiate a fresh inquiry or await the outcome of criminal proceedings.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a PITNDPS detention order after a 45-day delay in notifying the detenu of her right to represent to the Central Government and an unexplained five-month delay in deciding that representation. The ruling reinforces that Article 22(5) safeguards are mandatory, not directory, and procedural lapses of this magnitude render detention unlawful.

The Supreme Court ruled that ex parte opinions by Foreigners Tribunals, lacking meaningful adjudication, violate principles of natural justice. The Court set aside such orders and directed fresh hearings with strict procedural safeguards, reinforcing the burden of proof on the state under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and 1964 Order.

Supreme Court sets aside ex parte orders of Foreigners Tribunals in Assam, ruling that declarations of foreigner status must comply with principles of natural justice-including disclosure of material grounds and reasoned conclusions. The judgment reinforces that procedural fairness is mandatory even in quasi-judicial proceedings affecting citizenship rights under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and 1964 Order.

Andhra Pradesh High Court modifies police custody conditions under BNSS Section 528, mandating videographic documentation and accused safety during scene reconstruction. The ruling establishes a precedent for balancing investigative powers with constitutional safeguards, ensuring transparency in custodial interrogations.

Bombay High Court holds that failure to provide written grounds of arrest under BNSS Section 47 renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, regardless of prejudice. The ruling reinforces constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22, mandating strict compliance with procedural requirements for all arrests.

Uttarakhand High Court ruled that failure to communicate grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution renders detention illegal, even in NDPS cases with statutory bail restrictions. The Court emphasized that procedural lapses, including implausible explanations for missing CCTV footage, undermine the prosecution's case and justify bail.

Uttarakhand High Court rules that an arrest memo containing factual allegations fulfills the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) to communicate grounds of arrest, eliminating the need for a separate written document. This judgment simplifies arrest procedures for law enforcement while ensuring accused persons are informed of the charges against them.