The Rajasthan High Court on 18 June dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Rohit Joshi, son of former minister Mahesh Joshi, challenging the legality of his father's arrest in the multi-crore Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) scam. While rejecting the plea, the Court levelled sharp criticism at both the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and the Special Judge handling ACB matters, flagging serious procedural failures and observing that certain facts appeared, prima facie, to have been manipulated.

What the High Court Found

A Division Bench of Justice Umashankar Vyas and Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, in a detailed order uploaded on Wednesday, held that the constitutional requirement of communicating grounds of arrest to the accused had not been properly followed. The Bench found that the ACB failed to place on record any document establishing that Mahesh Joshi had been informed of the actual grounds of his arrest on 7 May.

The Court drew a clear distinction between 'grounds of arrest' and 'reasons for arrest' — two legally separate concepts — and observed that the ACB appeared to have failed to appreciate this fundamental difference, instead merely citing the legal provisions under which the case was registered.

Contradictions in ACB's Responses

The Bench pointed to internal contradictions in the agency's submissions. The ACB initially claimed that Mahesh Joshi had been informed of the grounds of arrest; it subsequently stated that the information had been conveyed to his family members instead. Additional facts were introduced only in a later reply, which the Court noted appeared, prima facie, to have been manipulated.

This comes amid broader scrutiny of arrest procedures across Indian enforcement agencies, with the Supreme Court having repeatedly emphasised the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) that protect accused persons from arbitrary detention.

Special Judge's 31-Day Delay Criticised

The High Court also found fault with the Special Judge's handling of the matter. Mahesh Joshi had raised objections regarding the legality of his arrest during remand proceedings on 7 May itself. The Bench held that the Special Judge was duty-bound to examine those objections immediately. Instead, the application remained pending for approximately 31 days before being decided — a delay the Court described as a serious lapse.

Why the Petition Was Still Dismissed

Despite its strong observations, the Court declined to grant relief under habeas corpus jurisdiction. Since Mahesh Joshi was already in judicial custody pursuant to court orders, the Bench held — in line with established Supreme Court precedents — that the legality of the original arrest could not be examined through this route. The Court left open the option of challenging the Special Judge's order through appropriate legal remedies.

Training Directive and Next Steps

Underlining the need for systemic correction, the Bench called for structured training of police personnel and judicial officers on Supreme Court directives governing arrests and the rights of the accused. The Court directed that a copy of its order be placed before the Chief Justice through the Registrar General and also forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to ensure compliance with prescribed guidelines.

With the habeas corpus route now closed, the focus shifts to whether the Joshi family pursues a challenge to the Special Judge's remand order through the appropriate appellate forum — a path the High Court has explicitly left open.