Karnataka High Court Considers RCB Marketing Head's Arrest a Matter of Personal Liberty; Seeks Government Response. Questions Raised Regarding Arrest Procedure.
Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court heard a crucial petition on Monday regarding the arrest of the Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) marketing head, apprehended in connection with a stampede incident at Bengaluru's M. Chinnaswamy Stadium. The petition challenged the arrest as illegal and arbitrary. The High Court, taking the matter seriously, posed three key questions to the state government, stating that it concerns an individual's personal liberty. The court indicated it would deliver a verdict on interim relief by 10:30 AM on Tuesday.
Petitioner's Argument: Illegal and Ultra Vires Arrest
The petitioner's lawyer argued that the arrest was not only illegal but also beyond the police's authority. The lawyer stated that the arrest was made under pressure on officials following the Chief Minister's statement, while the investigation was still at a preliminary stage. The court clarified that the government must respond immediately on such a serious issue of personal liberty.
High Court's Sharp Remarks on the Chief Minister's Statement
During the hearing, the High Court questioned whether the Chief Minister actually used the words "arrest him" in a press conference. The state Advocate General (AG) stated he could not confirm this. However, the court pressed further, asking if any record existed to substantiate this statement. The court observed that the Chief Minister should have refrained from such a statement, as it raises questions about the impartiality of the investigation.
Three Key Questions Posed by the Court to the Government
The High Court posed three specific questions to the state government:
- Did the Chief Minister indeed order the arrest?
- Did the CCB (Central Crime Branch) make the arrest? If so, under what authority?
- When was this case transferred to the CID (Crime Investigation Department)?
The government must answer these questions before Tuesday morning. The court stated that the decision on interim relief would be based on these answers.
Questions Raised Regarding the Timing and Procedure of the Arrest
The petitioner's lawyer informed the court that the police arrested the petitioner at around 4:30 AM without any concrete basis. Shortly after, at 4:50 AM, two other officials and at 5:00 AM another individual were also detained. The lawyer alleged that this was done according to a pre-planned script to justify the arrest. The court noted that at the time of arrest, at least some clear grounds should have been given at the police station.
Petitioner Argues Chief Minister Has No Authority to Order an Arrest
The petitioner argued that the Chief Minister has no constitutional right to order the arrest of anyone during an investigation. The Supreme Court's clear view is that the authority to take action in any investigation rests solely with the investigating officer's discretion. The court stated that the Chief Minister could only say that the investigation was underway and would be conducted impartially. However, making a public statement about the arrest affects the investigation process.
