The Supreme Court on Monday, 22 June stayed an Allahabad High Court order that had imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government and its officials in a habeas corpus matter involving the alleged illegal arrest and prolonged detention of a man in Unnao district. The stay is limited to the cost imposition and does not disturb the High Court's finding that the arrest itself was unlawful.

What the Supreme Court Ordered

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva passed the interim order while hearing a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the Uttar Pradesh government and other state authorities. The Bench issued notice on the SLP and directed the matter to be listed after eight weeks.

The court's order stated: 'Issue notice, returnable in eight weeks. In the meanwhile, the impugned order insofar as it relates to the imposition of cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on the petitioners as mentioned in paragraph nos. 13 and 16 of the impugned order, shall remain stayed.'

Background: The Allahabad High Court Ruling

The SLP challenges a 29 April judgment of the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench, delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava, in a habeas corpus petition filed by Manoj Kumar.

The High Court had declared Kumar's arrest on 27 January 2026 illegal, finding that the arrest memo merely cited a case crime number without disclosing the actual grounds of arrest — a failure to comply with a mandatory constitutional requirement. The remand order passed the following day was also set aside, as it flowed directly from what the court characterised as an unlawful arrest.

The Constitutional Principle at Stake

Relying on recent Supreme Court decisions — including Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Dr Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India — the High Court held that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is 'not a mere formality but a mandatory, binding constitutional safeguard.' The ruling underscored that procedural shortcuts in arrests carry direct constitutional consequences.

The High Court noted that Kumar had remained in custody for more than three months due to what it described as a 'gross violation' of constitutional safeguards, and found that authorities had 'flagrantly violated' the law governing arrests.

The Cost Order and Its Mechanics

While allowing the habeas corpus petition, the Allahabad High Court directed Kumar's immediate release — subject to his not being required in any other case — and imposed exemplary costs of ₹10 lakh on the state authorities. The amount was to be paid initially by the state government, with the liberty to recover it from the officials found personally responsible, in accordance with law.

It is specifically this cost imposition — not the finding of illegal arrest or the release order — that the UP government has challenged before the Supreme Court and which now stands stayed pending further hearing.

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court will take up the matter after eight weeks, when the state's challenge to the cost order will be heard on merits. The underlying finding that Kumar's arrest was unconstitutional remains intact for now. The case is being closely watched as part of a broader pattern of High Courts imposing exemplary costs on state authorities for custodial rights violations — a trend that the apex court will now have occasion to examine.