Sub-Inspector of Police (ASI). The duties of the designated officer shall include the compilation and maintenance of comprehensive arrest records, which shall contain:

- Names and addresses of arrested individuals.

- The nature of offences with which the arrested individual is charged

This provision ensures that records on arrest are documented properly and made available. This has implications of creating order and uniformity in the record-keeping processes of police officers.

The arrest records kept by the officer designated must be exhibited at police stations and district headquarters. The same requirement is applied to digital formats, where the information will be accessible to the public through accessible media. In requiring public display of such information, Section 37 hopes to make law enforcement activities more transparent, where the public will be informed of arrests and police actions in their areas.

It increases police transparency by insisting that arrest information be made publicly available. The purpose of this section is to create public confidence in the police as citizens are better informed about the arrests and their causes. Public availability of arrest records eliminates secrecy and encourages a sense of accountability among police departments.

This means the police department can have an appointed officer to be in charge of arrest records. Such an officer would handle any arrest matter that falls within the district or police station, which provides a chain of responsibility. It ensures that unlawful and arbitrary arrests do not take place and also ensures the integrity of police activities in general.

Case law:

Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India(2023)

The case is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India, delivered on October 3, 2023, which addresses the procedural rights of individuals arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The judgment specifically scrutinizes the legality of arrests made by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), establishing crucial guidelines for ensuring the protection of constitutional rights during the arrest process.

Pankaj Bansal and his father Basant Bansal were arrested in connection with alleged money laundering activities related to the M3M Group, a major real estate firm. The arrests were challenged on constitutional grounds, primarily alleging violations of Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to be informed of the grounds for one's arrest. The petitioners argued that the ED's failure to provide proper and written grounds for their arrest violated their fundamental rights, including the right against arbitrary detention.

The Supreme Court declared that the ED did not conform to the PMLA requirement of Section 19(1) to provide written reasons for an arrest, which in turn mandates for an arrested individual. The reading out of reasons orally by the Court is found to be non-conformist with the principles of law; thus, all the arrests in question by ED against Pankaj Bansal and his father were declared as illegal.

The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of maintaining transparency in arrest procedures and procedural safeguards. Such safeguards were held important to protect individuals' rights as well as maintain the fairness and justice of the law enforcement process. The Court reiterated that the accused must be fully informed of the charges and the basis for their arrest in a manner that allows them to effectively challenge the allegations against them.

The ED had contended that urgency and confidentiality were of utmost importance to their investigations and that such needs legitimized the failure to present written grounds for arrest. But the Court dismissed this contention in the name of urgency or the exigency of secrecy, holding that urgency or the need for secrecy is no excuse to waive regular legal protocol. The Court held that no constitutional rights should be glossed over by operational expediency.

The judgment reiterates the principle that grounds in writing must be given to the arrested person as a matter of legal right. This safeguards the right to information, which means that the person is informed of the charges and the reasons for detention, thus being able to present a proper defense.