Supreme Court Stays Allahabad HC's ₹10 Lakh Compensation Order For Man Illegally Detained By UP Police

The Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sanjeev Sachdeva passed the interim order while hearing an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government challenging only the compensation component of the High Court's judgment. "Issue notice. In the meanwhile, the impugned order in so far as it relates to imposition of cost of ₹10 lakh on the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing," the Court said.

Appearing for the State, Additional Advocate General (AAG) Sharan Dev Thakur clarified that the government was not disputing the High Court's findings regarding the illegality of the arrest. "I am not shying away from the fact that grounds of arrest were not supplied. The only point I am canvassing is limited to the extent of the cost which is imposed. The concerned SHO was suspended by us," the counsel submitted.

The Bench thereafter stayed the payment of compensation pending further consideration of the State's appeal.

The SLP was filed through AoR Shaurya Sahay.

The matter arises out of a habeas corpus petition filed by one Manoj Kumar before the Allahabad High Court challenging his arrest in a criminal case registered in Unnao and seeking his release from custody. Kumar was arrested on January 27, 2026, in connection with an FIR registered in September 2024. He contended that his arrest was unconstitutional because the police failed to furnish him with written grounds of arrest, as mandated by recent Supreme Court rulings interpreting Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

Examining the arrest memo, the High Court found that it merely mentioned the crime number and did not disclose the reasons for Kumar's arrest. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Dr Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India, the High Court held that non-communication of the grounds of arrest rendered both the arrest and the subsequent remand proceedings illegal.

The High Court had also sought an explanation from the State's Additional Chief Secretary (Home) on why exemplary costs should not be imposed for Kumar's continued illegal detention, which had then extended to nearly three months.

However, the Court found that the affidavit subsequently filed by the Additional Chief Secretary failed to address the issue of compensation and merely stated that reports had been sought from authorities and that the matter was under consideration.

Expressing displeasure, the High Court had observed: "If this is the non-application of mind at the end of the highest authority of the Home Department i.e. Additional Chief Secretary (Home), we can well understand as to how the other authorities of the State are working!!!"

Consequently, by its order dated April 29, the High Court allowed the habeas corpus petition, declared Kumar's arrest illegal, set aside the remand order and directed his immediate release. The High Court further imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on the State government, holding that Kumar had been deprived of his personal liberty for over three months because the authorities failed to comply with the constitutional safeguards governing arrest and detention.

The Uttar Pradesh government has now challenged only the compensation direction before the Supreme Court. While staying the payment of Rs.10 lakh, the apex court has issued notice and will examine the State's challenge on the next date of hearing.