JAIPUR: A notice served solely through WhatsApp cannot be the basis for arrest, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled. In a case where an accused was arrested via a WhatsApp notice, the court has held IPS officer and then Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Pushpendra Singh Rathore, guilty of contempt of court.
The Court has directed him to appear in person on April 6 for a hearing on the quantum of sentence.
The order was passed by Justice Praveer Bhatnagar while hearing a contempt petition filed by Ravi Meena.
According to the petitioner’s counsel, Mohit Khandelwal, the ACB had arrested the petitoner on February 1, 2023, in connection with a bribery case linked to the Rajasthan Skill and Livelihoods Development Corporation. Prior to the arrest, the Investigating Officer had issued a notice on January 25, 2023, via WhatsApp, directing the petitioner to appear on January 31.
The petitioner responded to the notice, seeking additional time due to his wife’s illness. However, despite this communication, the ACB proceeded to arrest him without following due legal procedure.
Challenging the action, the petitioner argued that it was a clear violation of Section 41A CrPC, which mandates issuance of a proper notice of appearance before arrest in such cases. It was contended that the failure to follow the prescribed process amounted to contempt of both the law and the Court.
Expressing serious concern, the Court observed that a notice served solely through WhatsApp does not meet the legal requirements under Section 41A of the CrPC. It further held that an arrest made on the basis of such a notice infringes upon an individual’s personal liberty.
The Court emphasized that notices must be served strictly in accordance with established legal procedures, such as personal delivery, affixation, or dispatch through Speed Post or other recognized modes.
In its defense, the ACB argued that a notice had indeed been issued and that the petitioner had adopted an evasive approach. It also submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached both the High Court and the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the FIR, but failed, and that the contempt plea was filed to exert pressure on the investigating agency.
After considering submissions from both sides, the Court found the arrest procedure to be unlawful and summoned the ASP to appear before it for further proceedings.