Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of Section 311A Proviso Of CrPC

Aastha Pareek 

In a notable judgment, the Delhi High Court on December 23, 2024 upheld the Constitutional validity of the provisio to Section 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which empowers the magistrates to order individuals to provide specimen signatures to assist investigations in the case of Court On Its Own Motion v. State.The proviso specifies that such an order cannot be issued unless the individual is under arrest. However, the Court clarified that this requirement is directory rather than mandatory.

The case emerged from a magistrate’s reference, which sought clarity on whether an individual must be arrested or in custody before being compelled to provide specimen signatures under Section 311A of CrPC. Additionally, the magistrate questioned whether this provisio excessively infringes on fundamental rights. Addressing these concerns, a Bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma observed that interpreting the term “shall” as mandatory would lead to undesirable consequences. It noted that mandating arrest in all cases would disregard the discretion granted to investigating officers, even in instances involving non-bailable offences, where arrest is not always compulsory.

The Court highlighted that individuals voluntarily appearing before the magistrate to provide specimen signatures need not be arrested. This interpretation aligns with the discretionary approach to arrests, reinforcing that the necessity for arrests must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Court’s decision also referenced the corresponding provision under Section 349 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which explicitly states that the magistrates can order individuals to provide specimen signatures without prior arrest, provided reasons are recorded in writing.

This judgment underscores a balanced approach to safeguarding individual rights while facilitating effective investigation. It reflects a progressive understanding of procedural requirements under criminal law, emphasizing that procedural directives should not disproportionately impede personal liberty. The Court’s stance ensures that the principle of fairness prevails in the application of Section 311A of CrPC, upholding both investigative needs and constitutional rights.

Case Name:- Court on its own motion v. State

Case Number:- CRL.REF. 3/2019

Bench:- Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma

Click here to access the order.