Kerala dental college faculty member’s arrest in student’s death raises larger questions on safeguards against ‘illegal’ arrests
Larger questions surrounding personal liberty and the legal safeguards available to citizens against illegal arrests without a warrant have come into renewed focus in Kerala
Larger questions surrounding personal liberty and the legal safeguards available to citizens against illegal arrests without a warrant have come into renewed focus in Kerala with the recent “illegal” arrest of Dr. Kodanda Ram, a former faculty member at the Dental College, Anjarakandy, Kannur. Ram was arraigned as an accused in the case booked in connection with the alleged suicide of Nithin Raj, a first-year BDS student, on April 10, 2026. Ram, who went into hiding for 101 days after being slapped with the provisions of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was arrested by the police and produced before the Sessions Court, Thalassery, recently. However, M. Manoj, the Principal Sessions Judge, set the accused at liberty after finding that Mr. Ram was arrested by the police “in complete disregard” of the Constitutional provisions and the safeguards for personal liberty set by the Supreme Court. The violations of the mandatory provisions and fundamental rights prescribed by the Constitution in the case came to light on an interaction of the sessions judge with the accused. The accused, when asked whether he was informed about the grounds of arrest, told the court that he was arrested because the student committed suicide. The lawyers for the accused also informed the court that the police had not conveyed the grounds of arrest, and that he was not provided with the reasons for the arrest in writing, as stipulated by the Supreme Court in a few landmark judgments.
The absence of the mandatory compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing breached the fundamental rights of the accused and violated the legal safeguards against illegal arrest, as provided by the apex court, observed the trial court, while ordering him to be released forthwith. The police, which released him from custody, subsequently arrested him, after apparently providing him in writing the reasons for the arrest. The court found that the information provided to the accused about the reasons and grounds for the arrest was also insufficient. The reasons were merely mentioned as: “the accused had committed a serious offence and the anticipatory bail of the accused was rejected by the Supreme Court,” which were grossly inadequate and failed to uphold the spirit of the apex court order, the trial court found. The non-compliance of the constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or detention being rendered illegal, the trial court held, while quoting elaborately from the judgments of the apex court. In one of the landmark judgments, the apex court held that the grounds of detention should be “effectively and fully communicated to the arrestee in the manner in which he will fully understand the same.” The court further explained that the “grounds of arrest must be informed in a language which the arrestee understands.” In yet another case, the court held that the “mode of conveying the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose.” The effective and full communication of reasons for the arrest is also required for the arrestee to exercise his constitutional right, as specified in Article 22 (1) “to consult an advocate of his choice and the right to be defended by an advocate.
The BriefWire