Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh Must File Affidavits on Section 41A CrPC Compliance, Delhi HC Directs DGPs and Chief Secretaries
Hearing clustered contempt petitions, Delhi HC directed the DGPs and Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh to explain compliance with Supreme Court directions on Section 41A arrest-notice procedure.
Justice Sudeepti Sharma of the Delhi High Court, on 9 September 2026, directed the Directors General of Police and the Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana, and U.T. Chandigarh to each file a specific affidavit explaining how the Supreme Court’s directions in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Anr., 2022 AIR SC 3386, have been carried out in their jurisdictions. The directions arose during the hearing of a cluster of contempt petitions and came after the court-appointed amicus curiae drew attention to a gap between what the Supreme Court had mandated regarding Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and what the States appeared to have actually done. The court also dealt with several compliance-related applications within the same hearing, waiving costs in some proceedings and taking compliance affidavits on record in others.
The Contempt Cluster and What It Concerns
The matter before Justice Sharma involved eight contempt petitions — COCP-4146-2025, COCP-4522-2025, COCP-4787-2024, COCP-6263-2025, COCP-598-2023, COCP-256-2026, COCP-3350-2024, and COCP-3337-2026 — all listed together and appearing to concern compliance with procedural obligations by police officers across Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. The range of respondents named across the petitions includes serving police officials at various ranks.
In COCP-3350-2024 and COCP-3337-2026, the court found it appropriate to appoint Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate, as amicus curiae to assist in the proceedings. The Registry was directed to supply a complete set of the paper-books of those cases to Mr. Mittal. His role proved decisive in refocusing the court’s attention onto the broader question of Section 41A compliance.
The Section 41A Procedure and Its Origins
Section 41A of the Code requires police officers to issue a notice to a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, directing that person to appear before them rather than making an immediate arrest. Non-compliance with the notice can then render the person liable to arrest.
The amicus curiae drew the court’s attention to a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., 2018 (2) SCC Online Del 13448. In that judgment, the Division Bench had framed a detailed and comprehensive procedure for how Section 41A notices should be issued, served, acknowledged, and recorded. The procedure covered the exact format of the notice, the acknowledgement slip, how booklets should be maintained by investigating officers, the obligation on the SHO to preserve used booklets until the final report is filed, and the consequences of non-compliance, including disciplinary proceedings and contempt. The Division Bench had further directed that the same procedure apply to sections 91, 160, and 175 of the Code.
In response to that judgment, the Delhi Police issued Standing Order No. 109 of 2020 to operationalise the Section 41A procedure within its jurisdiction. The amicus curiae produced a copy of the standing order, which the court took on record as Annexure A-1 in COCP-4146-2025.
The Supreme Court’s Mandate in Satender Kumar Antil
The procedural framework developed by the Delhi High Court in Amandeep Singh Johar and the standing order of the Delhi Police did not remain confined to Delhi. The amicus curiae brought to the court’s notice that the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Anr., 2022 AIR SC 3386, had expressly noted both and directed all State Governments and Union Territories to act on them.
Paragraph 73(d) of that Supreme Court judgment, which Justice Sharma extracted in her order, reads: “All the State Governments and the Union Territories are directed to facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41A of the Code while taking note of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 07.02.2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 7608 of 2018 and the standing order issued by the Delhi Police i.e. Standing Order No. 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41A of the Code.”
The court observed that this direction was “unambiguously clear” — every State Government and every Union Territory was obligated to put in place its own standing order governing the Section 41A procedure. The question before the court was whether Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh had done so, and if they had, in what form and to what extent.
Directions to States and U.T. Chandigarh
Against this backdrop, Justice Sharma issued specific directions to the three jurisdictions. The DGP and the Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab, the DGP and the Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana, and their counterparts in U.T. Chandigarh are each required to file affidavits addressing how the directions in paragraph 73(d) of Satender Kumar Antil have been complied with in their respective jurisdictions. The affidavits must also attach the proformas being used by police officers in those States and the U.T. for issuance of Section 41A notices and for acknowledgement, so the court can examine them.
The court set a specific filing discipline: the affidavits must be filed at least two days before the next date of hearing, with advance copies to the amicus curiae. The order makes clear that failure to file on time will attract an “appropriate order.” Copies of the order were directed to be supplied to the State counsel for Punjab, Haryana, and U.T. Chandigarh for onward transmission to the respective DGPs and Chief Secretaries to ensure strict compliance.
Applications Disposed of During the Hearing
Alongside the broader Section 41A directions, Justice Sharma dealt with several procedural applications and compliance matters filed across the connected petitions.
In COCP-598-2023, two applications under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure were taken up. The first, C.M. No. 17987-CII-2026, sought to place on record the compliance affidavit of respondent No. 4 and to modify the order dated 13 August 2026 to the extent of waiving a cost of Rs. 30,000. The State counsel further requested that the cost of Rs. 10,000 imposed on respondent No. 4 by the order dated 31 August 2026 also be waived. The court allowed both modifications and took the compliance affidavit on record.
The second application, C.M. No. 17996-CII-2026, sought to place the compliance affidavit of respondent No. 1 on record. That application was allowed as prayed.
Also in COCP-598-2023, the compliance affidavit of Gabbar Singh, PPS, DSP, posted at HQ Khanna, District Khanna (respondent No. 2), filed in compliance of the order dated 26 August 2026 along with receipts Annexures R-2/1 and R-2/2, was taken on record. The further affidavit of Dilbagh Singh, ASI, posted at PS Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (respondent No. 3), also in compliance of the order dated 26 August 2026, was similarly taken on record. The State counsel confirmed that the cost of Rs. 30,000 imposed on respondent No. 3 had been deposited, with the receipt placed on record, and requested waiver of the additional Rs. 10,000 cost imposed by the order dated 31 August 2026. The court allowed that request as well.
In COCP-4146-2025, the compliance affidavits of respondent Nos. 3 to 9 and 11 to 13 were taken on record, with the Registry directed to tag them at the appropriate place. The State counsel sought additional time to file the compliance affidavit of respondent No. 6. In COCP-256-2026, counsel for respondent No. 4 similarly sought more time to file a compliance affidavit. In COCP-3337-2026, the State counsel also sought time to file the compliance affidavit for that matter.
Order
The court adjourned all the connected matters to 16 September 2026, to be taken up at 2:00 p.m. Arguments were recorded as having been heard in part. A photocopy of the order was directed to be placed on the files of all connected cases. The DGPs and Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh are required to file their affidavits on Section 41A compliance at least two days prior to that date, with advance copies to the amicus curiae, Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate.