In Ashish Kakkar vs. Chandigarh Police, the Supreme Court reiterated the salutary rule that a bland arrest memo naming the accused arrested is not sufficient unless it also contains the grounds for arrest.

The Apex Court has batted for the rights  of the accused and reiterated that indiscriminate and callous arrest are inimical to democracy in general and right to liberty in particular. Such arrests hark back to the black days of the emergency era. If it is a preventive arrest, the fact must be disclosed along with the law under which such arrest has been made.

Our jails are overflowing with undertrial prisoners—nearly two-thirds of the total inmate population, to be precise. Many remain incarcerated simply because they cannot afford bail. Arrests, therefore, should not be made lightly or routinely.

Case 2: Importance of drug labelling vs. ignorance of public 

In India drug labelling isn’t taken seriously by both the manufacturers and the consumers. But in the US, it is so much so that any trivialisation with it is visited with heavy penalty for the manufacturer.  In Dabur India Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, the Bombay High Court let off the manufacturer with a slap on the wrist — recall the stock that contains misleading and wrong claims on the labels. 

Dabur India filed an affidavit before the Court that it would no longer use ‘anti-inflammatory’, ‘anti-bacterial’ and ‘analgesic’ on its toothpastes, in view of an order by the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Government of Maharashtra who must be commended for his vigilance and realisation of the importance of labels. 

No claim can be made without the FDA being satisfied of such claims. In the US, side effects of drugs must be disclosed on the labels and warnings for pregnant women, children and others too.  

Case 3: Instigation must have close proximity with suicide

The Supreme Court on March 27  laid down that the charge of instigation to suicide cannot be accepted blindly. The family of the suicide victim is often distraught and vengeful. It seeks to pin the blame on an alleged instigator.  Often it is a business partner.  Not uncommonly it is also the bank or money lender. They all become convenient whipping boys. 

But the Courts cannot be swayed by such hysteria. After all, a business partner will ask for accounts just as a bank will apply some legitimate pressure to repay the loan as per the loan agreement. A girl committing suicide on being ditched by her boy friend sometimes commits suicide. It can be the other way round too. But suicide notes blaming the lover cannot pass muster unless she or he had played a positive role and proximate role in the ending of the other’s life.  

Case 4: Importance of state-of-the-art lab in the customs department 

In a decision that should trigger some quick action, the Supreme Court on March 28, overturned the confiscation of imported goods labelled as “Base Oil SN 50,” which customs authorities had classified as High-Speed Diesel (HSD), that only the State entities are allowed to import.

The Court found that the Customs Department failed to provide conclusive evidence proving the goods were High-Speed Diesel (HSD), due to  inadequate in-house laboratory facilities and infrastructure. Alternatively, it should have access to a state-owned lab failing which to a credible private lab. Without such credible testing, it is illegal to confiscate on the basis of mere suspicion.

—The author, S. Murlidharan, is a Chartered Accountant and legal expert who provides commentary on and interprets important court rulings and judgments. The views expressed are his own.

Read the previous Legal Digest columns here