Special recovery custody of abducted persons is not arrest under Article 22, and the classification was held valid.

Statutory recovery of an abducted person under a special enactment was treated as a restorative custody procedure, not as arrest or detention for a criminal accusation, so the safeguards in Article 22(1) and (2) were held inapplicable. The Court also held that abducted persons formed a distinct class and that the geographical extension of the Act to specified States was a permissible classification, so the Act did not violate Article 14. The commentary further notes that, although the constitutional challenges failed, the appeal could not succeed because the Tribunal was improperly constituted and its order lacked jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the taking into custody of an abducted person under the Act amounted to arrest and detention within the meaning of Article 22(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the Act offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India by creating an impermissible discrimination against abducted persons.

Issue (i): Whether the taking into custody of an abducted person under the Act amounted to arrest and detention within the meaning of Article 22(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The protection in Article 22(1) and (2) was held to be directed primarily against arrests made on accusation or suspicion of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature, especially arrests without warrant by executive or other non-judicial authority. The scheme of the Act was different: it authorised recovery of abducted persons as part of a restorative measure, without any allegation that the person recovered had committed an offence. The custody taken under section 4 was therefore treated as a special statutory recovery procedure and not as an arrest attracting the constitutional safeguards applicable to ordinary arrests. Support was also drawn from analogous provisions in the criminal procedure law dealing with wrongful confinement and restoration of abducted females, where the recovered person is not treated as an arrested person.

Conclusion: The Act did not violate Article 22(1) and (2).

Issue (ii): Whether the Act offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India by creating an impermissible discrimination against abducted persons.

Analysis: Abducted persons formed a distinct and well-defined class for the purpose of recovery and restoration legislation. The territorial extension of the Act to specified States was also held to rest on a permissible geographical classification. The provisions empowering the Tribunal to decide the future custody or restoration of such persons were not discriminatory because every person within the defined class was equally subject to the statutory procedure and the alternative consequences authorised by the Act.

Conclusion: The Act did not offend Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenges examined by the Court failed, but the appeal could not succeed because the Tribunal was conceded to have been improperly constituted and its order was without jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory recovery of an abducted person, undertaken without criminal accusation and for restorative custody under a special enactment, is not arrest within Article 22; a classification based on abducted persons as a distinct class is valid if it is rationally connected with the object of the legislation.

---