Arrested Person Must Get Adequate Time To Consult Lawyer Before Remand: Delhi HC
Delhi HC: Arrested Person Must Get Adequate Time to Consult Lawyer Before Remand
The Delhi High Court in Marfing Tamang @ Maaina Tamang v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025:DHC:672 held that an arrested person must not only be informed of the grounds of arrest immediately but must also be given adequate and meaningful opportunity to consult a lawyer before being produced for remand.
Key Principles Laid Down
Right to Counsel is Fundamental
Article 22(1) of the Constitution guarantees every arrested person the right “to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.”
Section 41D CrPC (now Section 39 BNSS, 2023) further provides that an arrestee can meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout.
Grounds of Arrest & Time for Consultation
Merely reading out or hurriedly telling the grounds of arrest is not sufficient.
The Court emphasized that meaningful consultation with a lawyer requires adequate time before a remand hearing so that the arrestee can prepare a defence against police custody.
Remand without Consultation = Violation of Rights
The trial court’s remand order was quashed as it was passed without ensuring the arrestee’s access to legal assistance.
The Court held that this violates Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution.
Case Laws Relied Upon
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244
– SC held that grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing to enable effective legal challenge.
Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 934
– Reaffirmed that written grounds of arrest must be served; clarified prospective application of Pankaj Bansal.
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254
– SC declared arrest illegal where the accused was not given written grounds at the time of arrest; emphasized due process under Art. 22(1).
DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416
– Laid down arrest guidelines including right to inform family and consult a lawyer.
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260
– SC held that arrest must not be mechanical; rights of accused must be preserved.
Delhi HC’s Observations (2025 Judgment)
Arrest must be immediately communicated with reasons.
Accused must have “real, effective and adequate” time to meet a lawyer before remand.
Magistrates must ensure that remand proceedings are not mechanical but protect liberty.
Failure to provide this opportunity amounts to illegal detention.
✅ Conclusion:
The Delhi HC has reinforced that remand orders passed without giving the accused adequate time to consult a lawyer are unconstitutional and invalid. This ensures that the right to legal representation is not reduced to a mere formality but a substantive safeguard of personal liberty.
RELATED Blog
0 comments