CASE NAME: Emeka James Iwoba @ Austin Noso Iwoba & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
CASE NUMBER: Criminal Petition No. 11347 of 2025
COURT: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
DATE: 04 March 2026
QUORUM: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
FACTS
This case involves two Nigerian nationals, Emeka James Iwoba alias Austin Noso Iwoba and Uderike Fidelis, who were living at Kogilu Layout, Bengaluru. On 12 May 2024, acting on credible information, the Sampigehalli Police intercepted both men and recovered a rather alarming quantity of drugs from their possession 400 grams of MDMA crystals and 100 grams of cocaine, with a total estimated value of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Both men filed this Criminal Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, challenging their arrest and remand order.
The police alleged that these men were actively selling MDMA and cocaine to software employees and college students in the city. They were arrested the same evening at 7:00 p.m. and produced before the Magistrate the next day at 7:15 p.m., which meant there was already a delay of 15 minutes beyond the 24-hour limit.
What made the situation even more serious was the immigration background of both accused. Petitioner No. 1 (Emeka James Iwoba) had entered India in 2015 on a 3-month business visa that expired on 03 October 2015, and had been overstaying since 04 October 2015, for nearly a decade of illegal stay. He was also found to be holding two passports under two different names, with forged photographs and altered visa validity dates. Petitioner No. 2 (Uderike Fidelis) had similarly been overstaying since, with no valid residential permit whatsoever.
ISSUES
- Whether the arrest of the petitioners was illegal on account of the grounds of arrest not being communicated to them in a language they understood.
- Whether the delay of 15 minutes in producing the petitioners before the Magistrate beyond the 24-hour limit violated their constitutional rights.
- Whether Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India extends its protection to foreign nationals staying in India.
- What steps were to be taken against the petitioners after their release, given their prolonged illegal overstay.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
- Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
- Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
- Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
- Section 360 of BNSS, 2023 (regarding withdrawal of prosecution).
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONERS:
The counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.R. Balakrishna, argued that the arrest was straight-up illegal because at no point were the grounds of arrest communicated to the petitioners in a language they could actually understand. Since the petitioners are Nigerian nationals, they were not familiar with Kannada, yet the remand application, which was effectively the first time the grounds were made known to them, was written entirely in Kannada. The counsel also pointed out that the petitioners were produced before the Magistrate 15 minutes after the 24-hour window had expired, which was yet another violation. Relying on a string of Supreme Court judgments, the counsel argued that these violations entitled the petitioners to be set at liberty immediately.
RESPONDENTS:
THE STATE:
The Additional State Public Prosecutor, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, pushed back hard, contending that the grounds of arrest were in fact furnished to the petitioners and that they had even signed documents acknowledging receipt. He further argued that the Magistrate had noted this at the time of remand. More importantly, he stressed that the petitioners had been caught red-handed selling MDMA a huge quantity to college students, and showing them any leniency on a mere technicality would be completely against the public interest.
THE DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA:
Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, appearing for the FRRO (Respondent No. 4), placed on record the detailed immigration history of both petitioners, revealing the use of forged passports and multiple identities. He argued that since these petitioners had illegally entered and overstayed in the country, Article 22 of the Constitution should not be applied in its full rigour to them. He also brought to the Court’s attention a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 25 November 2025, issued by the Government of India, for withdrawing prosecutions against certain foreign nationals and facilitating their deportation.
ANALYSIS
The Court went into a detailed examination of Article 22(1), which says that no person who is arrested shall be kept in custody without being informed of the grounds of arrest. The Court relied heavily on a series of Supreme Court judgments Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) and several others, all of which consistently held that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is not just a procedural formality, it is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) read with Article 21.
The Court observed that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioners for the first time only through the remand application, and that, too, in Kannada, a language they clearly could not understand. The Court made it clear that furnishing grounds of arrest cannot be a hollow exercise, it must be done in a language the arrested person actually comprehends, or at the very least in English, especially when dealing with foreign nationals. This, in the Court’s view, amounted to a clear violation of Article 22(1).
On the question of whether Article 22 protects foreign nationals, the Court answered in affirmative. Unlike Article 19, which is exclusively citizen-centric, Article 22 uses the expression ‘no person’, which means it covers everyone within the territory of India, regardless of nationality. The only exception is an ‘enemy alien’ under Article 22(3)(a), which did not apply here. So the petitioners were entitled to the same constitutional protection as any Indian citizen would be upon arrest.
However, the Court did not ignore that both petitioners had been illegally overstaying in India for over a decade, without any valid documents, using forged passports and multiple identities. The Court noted the Government of India’s SOP of November 2025, which was specifically designed to handle situations where foreign nationals misuse judicial proceedings to delay deportation. The SOP provides for District Level and State Level Screening Committees to review such cases and facilitate withdrawal of prosecution followed by deportation.
JUDGMENT
The Court allowed the Criminal Petition in part. It held that the petitioners were entitled to be set at liberty since the grounds of arrest were not served upon them in a manner known to the law, specifically, not in a language they understood. However, the moment they were released, the Court ordered that they be immediately handed over to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) for further action under the SOP, including initiation of deportation proceedings given their decade-long illegal overstay. The Court also directed the State Government to constitute the State Level Screening Committee and District Level Screening Committee as envisaged under the SOP, within four months from the date of receipt of the order, and to report the same back to the Court.
CONCLUSION
This case draws a very important line that constitutional rights like Article 22(1) do not stop at the border. Even a foreign national, no matter how serious the charges against them, is entitled to be told why they are being arrested, and in a language they can actually understand. The police cannot treat this as a tick-box exercise. At the same time, the Court made it clear that release on a constitutional ground does not mean escape from accountability, the petitioners were to be immediately handed to the FRRO and deported. It is a judgment that balances the rule of law with the hard reality of illegal immigration and drug trafficking.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: KISLAY RAJ
read the judgment here
