4: Delhi High Court Ruling on Arbitrary Arrests in Mob Violence

• Bystander Protection: The Delhi High Court ruled that the mere presence of an individual at a site of mob violence does not justify an arrest. Law enforcement must distinguish between curious onlookers and active participants. • Requirement of Specific Evidence: The Court emphasized that the police must establish individual criminal liability through forensic evidence, video footage, or specific eyewitness accounts rather than relying on \'general allegations.\'• Article 21 Safeguards: The judgment underscores that the right to Personal Liberty is paramount. Arbitrary arrests during communal or civil unrest without \'prima facie\' evidence violate the core tenets of the Constitution. • Proportional Policing: The ruling serves as a check on \'sweep-up\' arrests often used by agencies to quell public pressure, mandating that the state’s power to arrest must be exercised with due process and proportionality. • Vicarious vs. Individual Liability: While Section 149 of the IPC (Common Object) deals with unlawful assembly, the Court noted it cannot be used as a blanket tool to implicate every person present in a crowded vicinity. • Focus on Investigation Quality: The High Court pointed out that haphazard arrests often lead to weak chargesheets, ultimately resulting in low conviction rates and harassment of innocent citizens. Constitutional & Legal Context • Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty; no person shall be deprived of their liberty except according to procedure established by law. • Section 141-149 IPC (now relevant sections of BNS): Deals with unlawful assembly and common intention. The court noted that \'common object\' must be proven, not assumed. • DK Basu v. State of West Bengal: Landmark SC judgment laying down guidelines for arrest and detention to prevent custodial torture and arbitrary state action. Key Definitions • Individual Criminal Liability: The legal principle that a person is responsible only for their own actions and not for the crimes committed by others, unless a common intention is proven. • Due Process of Law: A legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person, balancing the power of law of the land and protecting the individual person from it. Conclusion The Delhi High Court’s observation acts as a vital judicial shield for civil liberties. It compels the police to shift from \'mass detentions\' to \'evidence-based investigation,\' ensuring that the frenzy of a mob does not lead to a miscarriage of justice. UPSC Relevance • GS Paper 2: Fundamental Rights; Judiciary; Criminal Justice Reforms in India. • Ethics (GS4): Justice, fairness, and the ethical conduct of law enforcement agencies during public crises.