Deepa v/s S. Vijayalakshmi and Others (2025)

 

 The Madras High Court's ruling in the case of Deepa v/s S. Vijayalakshmi and Others (2025) has clarified the legal interpretation of provisions governing the arrest of women at night, balancing women’s safety with practical law enforcement challenges.

Court Ruling: Section 46(4) CrPC is Directory, Not Mandatory

The Madras High Court held that Section 46(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 (now Section 43(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023) is directory, meaning non-compliance does not automatically invalidate an arrest. This provision restricts the arrest of women after sunset and before sunrise unless exceptional circumstances exist and a magistrate’s permission is obtained. However, the court emphasized that while adherence is important, failure to comply does not render an arrest illegal if justified by public interest.

Key Reasons for the Ruling

Lack of Consequences for Non-Compliance:

• The court noted that Section 46(4) does not specify penalties for violating the nighttime arrest restriction. If the legislature intended the provision to be mandatory, it would have included explicit consequences.

Public Interest Considerations:

• Strict adherence could hinder justice in urgent cases, such as a heinous crime committed by a woman at night when a magistrate is unavailable. The court highlighted that mechanical compliance might allow the accused to escape, harming public safety .

Role of Police as Public Servants:

• Police officers perform a public duty, and rigid rules could obstruct effective law enforcement. The court stressed flexibility to address emergencies without compromising women’s safety.

Safeguards for Women’s Arrests

Under Section 43(5) of BNSS (and Section 46(4) of CrPC):

• Nighttime Arrest Restriction: Women cannot be arrested after sunset and before sunrise except in exceptional circumstances.
• Magistrate’s Permission: Even in exceptions, a woman police officer must obtain prior written permission from a magistrate.
• Physical Contact Protections: Officers must avoid touching a woman unless a female officer is present or circumstances demand it (per Section 46(1) CrPC) .

Implications of the Ruling

Non-Compliance Requires Justification:

• While police cannot ignore the provision, officers must justify deviations. Failure to comply may lead to scrutiny or disciplinary action .

Clarifying “Exceptional Circumstances”:

• The court directed police to define “exceptional circumstances” to prevent misuse and ensure the provision’s intent—protecting women—is upheld .

Balancing Safety and Public Interest:

• The ruling prioritizes women’s safety while allowing flexibility in urgent cases, ensuring law enforcement can act decisively without compromising public safety .

Historical Context

Law Commission Recommendations:

• The 135th (1989) and 154th (1996) Law Commission reports recommended restricting nighttime arrests of women to protect dignity and safety. These were codified into Section 46(4) CrPC in 2005 .

Supreme Court’s Stance:

• The Supreme Court has acknowledged practical difficulties in strictly enforcing such rules, reflecting a balanced approach similar to the Madras High Court’s ruling .

Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s ruling reinforces that Section 46(4) CrPC/43(5) BNSS is a safeguard, not an absolute rule. It ensures women’s protection while allowing police flexibility in critical cases. The court’s directive to define “exceptional circumstances” aims to prevent misuse, maintaining a delicate balance between women’s rights and effective law enforcement.