Arnesh Kumar Guidelines Flouted: Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice To Both State's Chief Secretaries, DGPs In Contempt Plea

In a significant order highlighting continued non-compliance of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notice to the Chief Secretaries and Director Generals of Police (DGPs) of the States of Punjab and Haryana to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.

Justice Sudeepti Sharma noted that, “the copy of the judgment dated 02.07.2014 was forwarded to the Chief Secretaries as also the Director Generals of Police of all the State Governments and the Union Territories and the Registrar General of all the High Courts for onward transmission and ensuring its compliance. Still the contempt petitions are filed for non- compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's.”

The matter arose in a contempt petition alleging disobedience of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1277-2014 in SLP (CRM) No. 9127-2013 titled Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

Supreme Court's Directions In Arnesh Kumar (2014) In its judgment dated July 2, 2014, the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive safeguards to prevent unnecessary arrests, particularly in cases under Section 498-A IPC and other offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.

The Court had observed that its endeavour was to ensure that:

“Police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrates do not authorise detention casually and mechanically.”

Among the key directions issued were:

Police officers must not automatically arrest an accused in Section 498-A IPC cases and must satisfy themselves regarding the necessity of arrest under Section 41 CrPC.

A checklist under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) CrPC must be prepared and furnished while producing the accused before the Magistrate.

Magistrates must peruse the police report and record satisfaction before authorising detention.

Decision not to arrest must be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks.

Notice of appearance under Section 41A CrPC must be served within two weeks.

Failure to comply would render police officers liable for departmental action and contempt proceedings before the High Court.

Judicial Magistrates authorising detention without recording reasons would also face departmental action.

Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that the directions would not be confined to Section 498-A IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but would apply to all offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.

The judgment was directed to be forwarded to Chief Secretaries, DGPs of all States and Union Territories, and Registrars General of all High Courts to ensure compliance.

Repeated Contempt Petitions Despite Circulation Of Judgment

The High Court noted that despite the judgment having been circulated to all States and authorities concerned, contempt petitions continue to be filed alleging non-compliance of the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar.

Although the present contempt petition was filed against the State of Haryana, the Court observed that numerous contempt petitions have also been filed against the State of Punjab for similar violations. Considering the recurring nature of non-compliance, the Court impleaded the State of Punjab as a party in the present proceedings.

Affidavits Show “Admission Of Disobedience

The Court directed the Additional Chief Secretaries and DGPs of both States to file comprehensive affidavits detailing the measures taken to implement the Supreme Court's directions.

Expressing serious concern, the Court observed that: The Supreme Court issued directions as far back as July 2, 2014. Even after more than a decade, contempt petitions are being filed alleging non-compliance. The compliance affidavits filed by both States in similar matters “are rather admission of disobedience.”

The Court further noted that a standard paragraph in the affidavits mentions that erring officers/officials have been charge-sheeted. However, it clarified that issuance of charge-sheets to individual police officials would not condone the contempt.

The Bench observed that the directions were issued specifically to the Chief Secretaries and DGPs to ensure compliance, and the recurring violations indicate that both States have failed to take effective steps to enforce the Supreme Court's mandate.

Notice To Chief Secretaries & DGPs

In view of the above, the High Court has issued notice to: The Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana; and The Director Generals of Police of both States to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for failure to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Arnesh Kumar.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 19, 2026.

Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ram Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. P.S. Poonia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Dharampal Saini,

Mr. Pulkit Dhanda, Mr. Yudhveer Hooda, Advocates for the applicant/respondent Nos. 11 to 13.

Title: SANDEEP KUMAR V/S PANKAJ NAIN, IPS AND OTHERS

Click here to read order