Article 22 Is Person Centric, Not Citizen Centric: Karnataka High Court Directs Release Of Two Nigerians Accused Of Drug Peddling
Court orders release noting that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to them in a language they understood, but directs authorities to hand them over to FRRO for deportation proceedings
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has ordered the release of two Nigerian nationals accused of drug peddling, after finding that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to them in a language they understood. Stressing on the constitutional safeguard under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and its wide scope, the Bench noted that it is person-centric and not citizen-centric, as opposed to Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
The Court held that the protection requiring an arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest applies to all persons, including foreign nationals, and failure to meaningfully communicate such grounds renders the arrest legally unsustainable.
However, the Court also directed that upon their release, the petitioners be handed over to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) for further action, including deportation proceedings, as the authorities had indicated that the individuals had overstayed in India for several years without valid documentation.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed “The afore-quoted remand application depicts that it was for the first time the grounds of arrest were made known to the petitioners, that too in a language not known to them. It ought to have been furnished in English, as the petitioners were foreign nationals who would understand English and not the vernacular. Furnishing of grounds of arrest cannot be a mere formality, only for the sake of furnishing. The mandate of the law is to furnish it immediately and in the language known to the accused or English language. The petitioners thus are entitled to be set at liberty on the ground of non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest in a manner known to law”.
“…Certain rights are conferred to citizens, while others extend to all persons. The distinction is deliberate and constitutionally significant. Article 19 which guarantees six cherished freedoms, is expressly restricted to citizens. It is citizen-centric in its design and operation. Article 22 however is not so limited. It employs the expression ‘no person’, thereby expanding its protective umbrella beyond the confines of citizenship. The term person is widest amplitude. It is inclusive and unqualified. It encompasses citizens and non-citizens alike and within its sweep falls even a foreign national. Therefore, the protection against arrest and detention embodied under Article 22 is person-centric, not citizen-centric. The constitutional guarantee does not evaporate at the border nor does it diminish by reason of nationality, except an enemy alien as defined under Article 22(3)(a) which expressly makes the provision inapplicable to an enemy alien, otherwise, a foreigner within the territory of India though, subject to the regulatory regime governing entry and stay is nevertheless, entitled to the procedural safeguards mandated by Article 22 when arrested for a penal offence”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate M.R. Balakrishna appeared for the petitioner and B.N. Jagadeesha, Addl. SPP, H. Shanthi Bhushan, DSGI appeared for the respondents.
The matter pertained to the arrest of two Nigerian nationals in Bengaluru on 12-05-2024 in connection with an alleged drug trafficking case. The Police claimed to have recovered 400 grams of MDMA crystals and 100 grams of cocaine, with an estimated value of about ₹50 lakh, from the accused, who were allegedly selling narcotics to software professionals and college students in the city.
While the State contended that the grounds of arrest had been communicated and that the offences involved serious violations of the NDPS Act, the petitioners argued that they were not informed of the grounds in a language they understood, thereby violating their fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
The Court on finding that the grounds of arrest were not served in a legally valid manner, held that the arrest and subsequent remand stood vitiated. It therefore ordered that the petitioners be set at liberty on this ground alone, noting that compliance with constitutional safeguards is mandatory irrespective of the nature of allegations.
The Court further directed the State to constitute the prescribed screening committees under the relevant Standard Operating Procedure to examine such cases involving foreign nationals.
Cause Title: Emeka James Iwoba & Anr. v. The State Of Karnataka & Ors. CRIMINAL PETITION No.11347 OF 2025
Appearances:
Petitioners: M.R. Balakrishna, Advocate.
Respondents: B.N. Jagadeesha, Addl. SPP, H. Shanthi Bhushan, DSGI.