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.