Chapter V
Section 45 CrPC: Protection of members of the Armed Forces from arrest
New Law Update (2024)
Section 55 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Maintenance / Compensation
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 41 to 44 (both inclusive), no member of the Armed Forces of the Union shall be arrested for anything done or purported to be done by him in the discharge of his official duties except after obtaining the consent of the Central Government.
(2) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Force charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section shall apply as if for the expression “Central Government” occurring therein, the expression “State Government” were substituted.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 45(1)
This sub-section grants protection to members of the Indian Armed Forces from arrest for actions performed as part of their official duties, unless prior consent is obtained from the Central Government. It ensures that military personnel can execute their duties without hindrance, requiring high-level approval for any arrest related to their service.
Section 45(2)
This sub-section allows State Governments, through an official notification, to extend similar protection to their state forces responsible for maintaining public order. When such a directive is issued, the consent of the State Government, rather than the Central Government, becomes necessary for the arrest of such personnel.
Landmark Judgements
Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998):
This landmark Supreme Court judgment, though primarily concerning the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), affirmed the constitutional validity of provisions granting special powers and immunities to the armed forces while emphasizing the necessity for adherence to human rights and accountability. It underscored that such powers, including protection from arrest, are granted for maintaining public order but must be exercised with restraint and due regard for fundamental rights, thereby impacting the interpretation of similar protections under Section 45 CrPC.
Karam Singh v. The State of Punjab (1977):
In this case, the Supreme Court deliberated on the scope of ‘official duty’ in the context of sanction for prosecution. While dealing with Section 197 CrPC, the principles laid down regarding acts “done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty” are highly pertinent to Section 45 CrPC. The Court held that for protection to apply, there must be a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty, implying that purely personal acts are not covered.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sanjay Singh (2018):
The Supreme Court, in this instance, reiterated the fundamental principles concerning the requirement of sanction for acts performed by public servants in the discharge of their official duties. Although relating to Section 197 CrPC, the ruling reinforces that the protection is not absolute and applies only when the alleged act is reasonably connected to the execution of official functions, thereby providing guidance on the parameters for claiming immunity from arrest under Section 45 CrPC.