Law & Justice

Bombay High Court Orders Rs 2 Lakh Compensation for Arun Ferreira After Illegal Arrest

By Vaibhav Ganjapure

The Bombay High Court has ordered the Maharashtra government to pay activist Arun Ferreira Rs 2 lakh in compensation, ruling that his arrest outside Nagpur Central Prison in 2011 violated his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The Nagpur bench partially granted Ferreira’s 2012 plea and directed the government to deposit the amount in court within eight weeks.

Ferreira was arrested by Nagpur police on 8 May 2007 and later faced several cases in Gondia and Chandrapur. He was acquitted in eight cases and discharged in one. After his last acquittal by a Chandrapur sessions court on 23 September 2011, he posted bail and was released on 27 September.

According to his counsel, after his release from Nagpur jail around 2:30 p.m., plain‑clothes officers from Gadchiroli police forced him into an unnumbered vehicle without identifying themselves or stating a reason, even though his mother, brother and lawyer were waiting outside the prison. His lawyer, Surendra Gadling, described the act as an abduction and complained to the police. The state denied any illegality, stating that Ferreira was required in two Gadchiroli cases related to alleged Maoist activity. Police said the vehicle’s number plate was removed and officers wore civilian clothes because Ferreira was considered a “senior member of a Naxal group” and security concerns required secrecy.

The court rejected that explanation, finding no diary entry or written communication showing that the Gadchiroli SP had directed his men to take Ferreira into custody. It also found that the arrest memo did not show that the reasons for arrest were communicated to Ferreira or his relatives. The only diary entry was that his lawyer was informed of the arrest. The judges noted that when Ferreira was produced before a magistrate on 28 September, he complained about the manner of his detention, but the complaint was not acted upon before custody was granted.

Stating that the constitutional mandate imposes a “mandatory unexceptional duty on the State” to provide the arrested person with the grounds of arrest so that he can seek legal advice and defend himself, the bench said the police had exceeded legal limits.