Case title:
Deepa Vs. S.Vijayalakshmi and Others
Date of Order:
7-02-2025
Bench:
The Honourable Mr.Justice G.R.Swaminathan And The Honourable Mr.Justice M.Jothiraman
Parties:
Appellant- Deepa (Sub-Inspector of Police), S. Anitha (Inspector of Police), and Krishna Veni (Woman Head Police Constable).
Respondent- S. Vijayalakshmi
SUBJECT
The subject of this case was regarding the interpretation of Section 46(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which pertains to the regulations of arrests made against women that a woman cannot be arrested unless a female police officer is present during the arrest process, ensuring the safety and dignity of women during such procedures.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 46(4) of CrPC – This section prohibits the arresting of women after sunset and before sunrise however there are exceptions for exceptional circumstances. If the arrest is extremely necessary a prior permission is required from a judicial magistrate.
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India-This Article gives protection of life and personal liberty. Act kind of arrest that violates the procedural protections especially concerning women’s rights is seen as a breach of Article 21.
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India- The Respondent in this case, S. Vijayalakshmi had filed for a writ petition under Article 226 to seek relief against the police officers who violated the procedural safeguards that were supposed to be taken.
OVERVIEW
To give an overview, an arrest was made against Vijayalakshmi at night without any judicial approval for the same. This act violated the section 46(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In this case the Madras High Court ruled that any arrests on women at night are not to be considered automatically illegal, provided that they have a justification for the arrest made. The court upheld the procedural safeguards that were supposed to be abided with while also considering the practical needs of the law enforcement.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the writ appeals are maintainable?
- Whether section 46 (4) of CRPC, (which correspond to section 43(5) of BNSS act) is mandatory?
- Whether the applicants are entitled to relief?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
The appellants (S.Deepa, S. Anitha, and Krishna Veni – police officers) argued the following points.
- Justified Night Arrest- Appellants argued that the arrest was extremely necessary due to the seriousness of the allegations that were against S. Vijayalakshmi. Appellants pressed on the argument -the possibility of S. Vijayalakshmi evading the law if the arrest was to be delayed.
- Absence of automatic illegality- The argument was made that even though Section 46(4) of the CrPC prohibits the arrests made at night without a judicial permit and yet that does not make every arrest to be treated as automatically illegal.
- No violation against Fundamental Rights- It was argued that the police had acted in good faith and met the procedural requirements which were possible under the circumstances at that time. They contended that there was no intention to harass Vijayalakshmi or violate her rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
- A balance of law enforcement with precautions- They argued that the guidelines given under D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal were not breached as Vijayalakshmi was not subjected to any kind of mistreatment. The stress was given to the point that Court should be considering the practical ground reality and difficulties that are faced by the police in case of urgency.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
The respondent advanced the following arguments
- Violation of Section 46(4) of CrPC - The argument was made that the arrest was made at night (8:00PM) which was illegal because there was no prior permission obtained from judicial magistrate which is a requirement under Section 46(4) in case of exceptional arrests.
- Breach of Fundamental Rights- Respondent argued that her right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated by the arrest. This arrest deprived her of the due process of arrest and thus it was an unfair treatment.
- No exceptional circumstance- The matter was of no exceptional urgency to reason out or justify her nighttime arrest. Instead the police could have followed the correct procedure and obtained the judicial approval.
- Misuse of power- It was argued that the arrest was a reflection of the police’s high-handedness ands was absolutely arbitrary in nature. The police officers acted beyond their authority which disregarded the legal safeguards present for women.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
The Madras High Court gave the verdict regarding this case and stated that a nighttime arrest is not automatically illegal if it is justified by the circumstances at hand. While section 46(4) of CrPC mandates a judicial permit, it cannot be disregarded that expectations exist for urgent cases. This judgment balances the safety of women with the needs of the law enforcement agencies to prevent strict application from hampering justice. The judgment reiterated the safeguards in Article 21 and cautioned the police against the arbitrary arrests. This ruling is in alignment with the guidelines of D.K.Basu , it assures procedural compliance while also recognising the practical challenges faced by the police. This Judgement sets a precedent for the case- specific scrutiny by reinforcing both legal protection and effective crime control.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, The Madras High Court’s decision clears out that while strict safeguards exist in order to protect women, the application of these provisions is not absolute in nature. This ruling underscores that in case of exigent circumstances an arrest may be justified even without prior judicial permit. This emphasises on balancing constitutional rights under Article 21 with the practical needs of the law enforcement agencies. This judgment reinforces that each case must be heard on its merits while maintaining compliance to procedure and protecting individual rights and freedoms.
