The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected the compliance affidavits filed by police and administrative heads of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh on the Arnesh Kumar safeguards against unnecessary arrest. It said the States and the Union Territory had again filed standard operating procedures (SOPs) that showed compliance "on paper" but not "actual compliance" on the ground.

Justice Sudeepti Sharma, hearing a batch of contempt petitions, said the officials' filing of SOPs was "nothing but... a farce exercise which looks rosy on surface but is far from the actual realities".

"This is a very sad state of affairs that the official of such a higher rank is filing such kind of affidavit, annexures attached to which are not even legible."

The Court directed the Station House Officers (SHOs) of Police Station Phase-I, Mohali, Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh, and Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, to appear with their actual records.

The contempt petitions alleged non-compliance with the safeguards against arbitrary arrest. These include Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The Court traced the safeguards to Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar ((2014) in which the Supreme Court directed police not to arrest unnecessarily, and magistrates not to authorise detention mechanically, in offences punishable with up to seven years. It also noted that the Delhi High Court in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State of NCT of Delhi laid down a detailed procedure, which led to a Delhi Police Standing Order. The Supreme Court then, in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), directed all States and Union Territories to issue standing orders on the procedure under Sections 41 and 41A.

On September 09, the Court directed the Directors General of Police and Chief Secretaries of the three jurisdictions to file specific affidavits showing how the directions in paragraph 73(d) of Antil had been complied with. It also directed them to attach the proformas for Section 41A notices and acknowledgments.

The amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Ankur Mittal, submitted that the Court had asked for two things: how the Antil directions are being complied with in "true letter and spirit", and the proformas. In his submission, the affidavits nonetheless followed "the same old bureaucratic approach", placing SOPs already on record.

He also pointed out that documents annexed to the contempt petitions themselves show the safeguards were not followed. On their face, he said, the notices are not in the prescribed format, lack serial or reference particulars, carry no acknowledgment, and in some cases were sent over WhatsApp.The State's responses, he said, did not deal with the actual notices in those cases.

After hearing the submissins, the observed that the compliance projected on paper and the material actually before it "pricks the judicial conscience" and warrants a deeper look at compliance "at the operational level". It said none of the affidavits showed actual compliance.

The Court said its 09.09.2026 order required more than producing SOPs already on record. It required the States to show the actual mechanism of implementation, including:

• whether duly indexed booklets of serially numbered notices, in duplicate or a similarly verifiable contemporaneous format, have been issued by each SHO to investigating officers
• whether used booklets are deposited with the SHO and how they are maintained until the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC / Section 193(3) BNSS
• what rules or protocols govern preservation, retrieval and destruction or archiving of such booklets, notices and acknowledgment.

To ensure the Antil mandate is "transformed into actual compliance at the ground level", the Court directed the SHOs of Police Station Phase-I, Mohali (S.A.S. Nagar), Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh, and Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, to appear with the following record, for the period after each State or U.T.'s SOP was issued:

• the indexed booklet of serially numbered notices in triplicate carbon-copy format
• carbon copies of the notices actually issued, with the case diary in which each is retained
• proof of acknowledgment in the prescribed format
• the year-wise register maintained at the police station on notices issued by investigating officers
• proof of actual service of each notice, including acknowledgment
• a separate statement of all cases where arrest followed despite notice and compliance, with the reasons recorded, the supporting material and the documents placed before the magistrate
• the case files of cases where arrest was made without a notice, with the reasons and material justifying it

The three DGPs must ensure the SHOs' appearance and produce the rules framed for preserving and destroying the used booklets. The SHOs must be "well versed" with the actual procedure followed at their police stations.

The matter is now adjourned to 29.09.2026.

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

Click here to read order