Following criticism over arrest of former Law Minister Jitender Singh Tomar on Tuesday morning, Delhi Police cited provisions of a landmark Supreme Court judgment in its defence.

A senior police officer justified sending a contingent of over two dozen policemen to Mr. Tomar’s residence around 6 a.m. to “enquire as per the directions of the Supreme Court of India in the Lalita Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh”.

“According to the judgment, delivered by a five-member Constitution Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and S.A. Bobde on November 12, 2013, based on the principle of habeas corpus that necessitates swift arrests as and when a criminal case pertaining to a cognisable offence, which in this case pertains to cheating, is made out,” said a senior police officer.

“We received a complaint against Mr. Tomar from the Honorary Secretary of the Bar Council on May 11, which was followed by investigation over 26 days before its conversion into a criminal offence after by his arrest,” the officer added.

According to a source, the decision to convert the complaint into a criminal case under relevant Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertaining to cheating had figured at the very top of recent deliberations held between senior Delhi Police officials, representatives of the Union Ministry of Home and Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Najeeb Jung earlier this month.

However, there seemed to be more than the provisions of the judgment guiding police action in the case.

The Hindu has leant that details pertaining to “progress in investigation” in the case were routinely sought by the Ministry from Delhi Police since the receipt of the complaint in the matter, but had gradually gathered steam with the ongoing tussle between the L-G’s Office and the Delhi government over the past fortnight.

“As per the judgment, a police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if a cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.”