Least Bothered About Court Orders: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Initiates Contempt Action Against Police Officer For Arresting 69 Year Old Man In Violation Of Arnesh Kumar Guidelines

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while initiating contempt action against a Police Officer for arresting a 69 years old man apparently after eight months of lodging of FIR in violation of Arnesh Kumar guidelines observed that he is least bothered about Court orders and should be ashamed.

The Court was considering a Petition alleging non-compliance of the directions contained in Supreme Court's judgement in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others, 2014 in arrest of a 69 years old man in an FIR registered for offences under Section 447, 323, 354, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The single bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed, "The above words of respondent do not need rocket science to understand as it shows and reflects that he is least bothered about the Court orders. He should have been ashamed to say such words. If those words are taken as the official stand of the department in which he is working, then it reflects and suggests the approach of the department towards the Courts and the orders of the Courts. When we go through the reply/objections of respondent, it again shows and reflects that respondent has been made to believe that he is not required to comply with the Court orders but to follow his whims and caprices."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate P. N. Raina while the Respondent was represented by Deputy Advocate General P. D. Singh.

Facts of the Case

It was stated by the Petitioner that after registration of the FIR in July 2021, he was never called by the Police for any questioning or investigation till March 2022. The FIR pertained to him illegally occupying a house while working as a watchman and misbehaving with the owner by outraging her modesty on her intervension. During the visit, the Police party took some files etc. from his house with them and he went with the Police to Station where he was made to sit till late evening without assigning any reason. In the evening, he was told that there was a criminal case registered against him way back on July 08, 2021, by and he was being arrested in the said case.

Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the order, the only direction given by the Magistrate was to verify the facts and report back, yet the FIR was registered against the Petitioner. He also urged that the other accused, named in the FIR, had never been arrested and non offence as alleged against the Petitioner in the FIR carries punishment of imprisonment for more than seven years. He further contended that despite the punishment for the offences falling within the parameters of Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra), yet the Petitioner was arrested by the Respondent and kept in illegal detention for three days, thus, violating the directions contained in the Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra).

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that the judgement in the case of Arnesh Kumar’s (supra) is a well- known and landmark judgement about the powers of arrest as it lays down the guidelines for Police to exercise the arrest powers more judiciously, particularly in cases where the punishment is less than seven years of imprisonment.

"The Supreme Court has emphasized the need to avoid indiscriminate arrests and to ensure that arrests are made only when necessary. The Supreme Court observed that no arrest would be made in routine manner and the police officer would not arrest any person without reasonable satisfaction after some investigation," the Court stressed

It further emphasized that the Executive, including government/non-government functionaries and the police department is no exception to that, is under legal, constitutional and statutory obligation and duty to comply with all the orders of the Courts inasmuch as judicial orders are binding on the executive to uphold the rule of law.

Noting that in the present case Respondent has not done so, the Court took exception to the Respondent for having the teeth to say that if the judgment of the Court is to be followed in strict sense, then almost all the officers of the State would be held liable under clause 11.5 of the judgment.

The Court disapproved of the Police Officer following his whims and caprices rather following Court orders and observed, "Instead of initiating proceedings against respondent, the department has permitted him to do whatever he would like to do. The respondent and the department cannot be permitted to interpret the directions of the Courts, the High Courts and the Supreme Court according to their impulses or quirks. All the citizens of India, the government/non- government organizations are no exception thereto, are under strict legal obligation to implement the Court orders word by word and letter by letter. If respondent or his department is not willing to implement and comply the orders of the Courts, the High Court and/or the Supreme Court, then what will be the future of our children need not be elucidated here."

Emphasizing that the Respondent was under legal, constitutional and statutory obligation and duty to implement the orders of the Courts, it warned that if he was/is not inclined to respect the Courts orders, then he has to face the consequences, which includes the contempt of the Court, initiation of disciplinary proceedings and payment of compensation to Petitioner.

The Petition was accordingly listed for July 14, 2025.

Cause Title: Iqbal Singh vs. Pankaj Sharma

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate P. N. Raina, Advocate J. A. Hamal

Respondent- Deputy Advocate General P. D. Singh, Advocate Vishal Kapoor

Click here to read/ download Order