Court says mere SOPs and affidavits are not enough; directs police chiefs and station house officers to produce original records proving actual compliance with Section 41A CrPC and Section 35 BNSS.
Chandigarh, September 16, 2026: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sharply criticised what it called “paper compliance” by police authorities in implementing safeguards against unnecessary arrests, holding that mere filing of standard operating procedures (SOPs) and affidavits does not prove real compliance with the law.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma was hearing a batch of contempt petitions alleging violation of statutory safeguards under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now reflected in Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitions stem from directions laid down by the Supreme Court in landmark rulings including Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, which require police officers to avoid unnecessary arrests and ensure that notices are issued properly before arrest in cases punishable with up to seven years’ imprisonment.
The Court noted that despite repeated judicial directions, compliance on the ground remained weak. According to the order, notices under Section 41A CrPC were allegedly being issued in improper formats, without proper acknowledgment, and in some cases even through WhatsApp. The Court observed that higher officials had responded by filing SOPs and administrative instructions, but those documents did not show how the law was actually being implemented at police station level.
In a strong observation, the Court said the issue was not whether SOPs existed on paper, but whether the directions of the Supreme Court were being followed “in true letter and spirit.” It held that the affidavits filed by the States and Union Territory were insufficient because they did not demonstrate the actual mechanism of implementation.
The Court also rejected the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab, noting that the annexures attached to it were illegible. The Court described this as a “sad state of affairs” and directed a fresh affidavit to be filed.
To verify the ground reality, the High Court directed the Station House Officers of Police Station Phase-I, Mohali; Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh; and Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula to appear before it with original records. These records must include indexed booklets of serially numbered notices, carbon copies of notices, acknowledgment records, registers maintained at the police stations, proof of service, and details of cases where arrest was made despite notice compliance or without issuance of notice.
The Court further directed the Director Generals of Police of Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh to ensure production of the relevant records and also the rules governing preservation and destruction of notice booklets. It made clear that the police officers appearing before the Court must be fully conversant with the actual procedures being followed at their respective police stations.
The matter has been adjourned to September 29, 2026, for further hearing.
Bottom Line :
Criminal Procedure - Safeguards against unnecessary arrest - Mere filing of SOPs and paper compliance by States is insufficient - Court can insist on proof of actual ground-level compliance of directions issued in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil regarding notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C./Section 35 BNSS - Senior officers directed to file proper affidavits and concerned SHOs directed to produce original operational record relating to issuance, acknowledgment, service and preservation of notices.
Statutory provision(s): Section 41A CrPC, Section 35 BNSS, Section 173(2) CrPC, Section 193(3) BNSS
Sandeep Kumar v. Pankaj Nain, IPS, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2982770
