The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a batch of contempt of court petitions concerning alleged non-compliance with safeguarding against illegal arrests, has directed the Director Generals of Police and Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh to file affidavits detailing compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI on standing orders for arrest procedure under Sections 41 and 41-A of the Cr.P.C.

Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "the DGP's/Chief Secretary(ies) of States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh are directed to file their specific affidavits as to how, the directions contained in para No. 73 (d) of Satender Kumar Antil's case (supra) as extracted above have/are been complied with in its true letter and spirit in their respective jurisdictions. It is further directed that the proformas prepared for issuance of notices/order by Police Officer under Section 41-A of the Code and the acknowledgment being followed in the respective States be attached with the affidavit (s) for the perusal of this Court."

The matter comprises a bunch of contempt of court petitions, with Senior Advocate Ankur Mittal assisting the Court as Amicus Curiae. During the course of the hearing on various compliance affidavits and applications in the connected petitions, the Amicus Curiae drew the Court's attention to the Delhi High Court's Division Bench judgment in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448, which, noting the insufficiency of existing machinery around Section 41-A Cr.P.C. procedure, had laid down a detailed and comprehensive protocol for issuance of notices under Section 41-A.

It included a model notice format, a serially-numbered duplicate booklet system for Investigating Officers, mandatory rescheduling safeguards for accused persons unable to attend, and consequences (including contempt liability under Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar) for non-compliant IOs. The Delhi High Court had extended this procedure to Sections 91, 160 and 175 Cr.P.C. as well.

The Amicus further pointed out that pursuant to this framework, Delhi Police had issued Standing Order No. 109 of 2020, and that the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022 AIR SC 3386, had expressly taken note of both the Delhi High Court procedure and the Delhi Police standing order, observing that such a framework would "certainly take care of unwarranted arrests" and, in Paragraph 73(d) of that judgment, directed:

"All the State Governments and the Union Territories are directed to facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41A of the Code while taking note of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 07.02.2018... and the standing order issued by the Delhi Police i.e. Standing Order No. 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41A of the Code."

Noting that this Supreme Court mandate was "unambiguously clear," the Court directed the DGPs/Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh to file specific affidavits detailing how the directions in Paragraph 73(d) of Satender Kumar Antil have been complied with "in its true letter and spirit" in their respective jurisdictions, along with the proformas presently being used for issuance of notices/orders under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the corresponding acknowledgment formats, for the Court's perusal.

The Court directed that these affidavits be filed at least two days in advance of the next date of hearing, with advance copies to the Amicus Curiae, failing which "appropriate order shall follow," and directed that copies of the order be transmitted to the respective DGPs/Chief Secretaries through counsel for the three governments to ensure strict compliance.

With arguments heard in part, the matter has been adjourned to 16.09.2026, to be taken up at 2:00 PM.

Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v. Pankaj Nain, IPS and others

Click here to read order