CLAT PG Current Affairs — 13 September 2026

The Constitutional Conduct Group, an association of retired All India and Central Services officers, has accused Delhi Police of violating constitutional provisions by arresting IPS officer Ashish Joshi. The CCG's statement alleges that the arrest constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of state power against a fellow officer. The case raises core questions about Article 21 protections, police accountability, and whether state action against a public servant can amount to a constitutional tort actionable under Part III.

This episode sits at the intersection of two constitutional doctrines CLAT PG has tested repeatedly: the scope of fundamental rights under Part III against state action, and the emerging concept of constitutional tort.

**Constitutional Tort Doctrine:** The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati (1962) and later in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) held that the State is liable for infringement of fundamental rights by its agents. Where a police action violates Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), the affected person can seek compensation directly under Article 32 or 226 — this is the constitutional tort route. The 2024 CLAT PG paper tested whether a Minister's statement inconsistent with Part III rights constitutes a constitutional tort; this case presents the same question in a police action context.

**Article 21 and Arbitrary Arrest:** Under Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), any procedure depriving a person of personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. An arrest that does not meet this standard violates Article 21. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) laid down mandatory safeguards for arrest and detention.

**State Action Requirement:** Fundamental rights under Part III are enforceable only against 'State' as defined in Article 12. Delhi Police, as a Central government force under the Ministry of Home Affairs, unambiguously qualifies as 'State.' Any violation of Part III rights by Delhi Police is therefore directly actionable.

**CCG's Role:** The Constitutional Conduct Group represents retired civil servants who monitor constitutional compliance. Their statements, while not legally binding, signal a narrative of institutional accountability that examiners use as passage material to test application of constitutional principles.

Uttar Pradesh will challenge before the Supreme Court an Allahabad High Court order that quashed the National Security Act detention of Akriti Chaudhary, a Noida resident. The HC had also rebuked District Magistrate Medha Roopam for the manner in which the detention was ordered. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court of the state's intent to appeal, signalling a direct confrontation between executive preventive detention powers and judicial oversight of those powers.

The National Security Act, 1980 (NSA) allows the Central or State government to detain a person without trial for up to 12 months to prevent threats to national security or public order. A detention order under the NSA is made by the District Magistrate (DM) or the State Government, and the detained person must be informed of the grounds of detention 'as soon as may be' — ordinarily within 5 days, extendable to 10 days in exceptional circumstances.

The critical procedural safeguard is the Advisory Board mechanism under Section 9 of the NSA. The Board, comprising persons qualified to be High Court judges, must confirm the detention within 7 weeks (now 3 weeks under BNSS-aligned reforms). The detained person has the right to make a representation against the order.

High Courts exercise habeas corpus jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine whether: (a) the detention order was made by a competent authority, (b) the grounds of detention are relevant and not vague or non-existent, and (c) the procedural safeguards were followed. If any of these fail, the HC quashes the detention.

In this case, the Allahabad HC went further — it rebuked the DM personally, signalling judicial disapproval of executive overreach. The state's decision to escalate to the Supreme Court raises the question of whether the SC will defer to the executive's public-order assessment or affirm the HC's oversight role. This tension between preventive detention and personal liberty under Articles 21 and 22 is a recurring CLAT PG examination theme.