New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday significantly expanded personal liberty protections, declaring that informing a person about grounds for arrest is constitutionally mandatory for all offences. These can range from theft to rape and murder, among others.
In its 52-page ruling, a two-judge bench reasoned that informing a person of the grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and must be conveyed in a way to achieve the object of “constitutional safeguard”.
Article 22(1) specifies that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed “as soon as may be” of the grounds for arrest.
“… if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as may be, it would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights, thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest illegal,” the judgment read.
Apart from Article 22(1), the bench of Chief Justice of India and Justice Augustine Masih also relied on statutory provisions under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) as the legal basis for its ruling. The sections reinforce the necessity of informing grounds for arrest at the earliest possible instance.
The bench pointed out that Section 50A of CrPC, now Section 48 of BNSS, was added to criminal procedure law to ensure that a friend, relative or any other person is also informed about the grounds for arrest.
Preferably written, in language that is understood
The bench said written grounds for arrest must be given, but these may be communicated orally if circumstances prevent written communication soon after arrests.
For instance, it said, if a policeman witnesses a murder being committed, it may not be possible to provide written grounds before arrest. A “rigid insistence” on written format could hamper a policeman’s ability to perform duties effectively in this case, it noted.
But the court set a timeframe too.
When grounds for arrest are initially communicated orally, the top court said, they must be provided in writing within a “reasonable time” and in any case, at least two hours before an accused is produced for remand proceedings before a magistrate. A person who is arrested has to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, according to Article 22(2).
The bench said information on grounds for arrest was intended to allow an accused to defend oneself. “Any shorter interval may render such preparation illusory,” the court said.
In its ruling, the top court invoked its orders in the 2023 Pankaj Bansal (PMLA) and 2024 Prabir Purkayastha (UAPA) cases, when it had insisted on supplying grounds for arrest in writing in a language understood by the accused.
Failure to provide grounds for arrest in the prescribed manner will render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, the court ruled, adding that this would entitle the person to be set free.
But, it said, the prosecution may still move an application for an accused’s remand or custody before a magistrate while giving reasons and necessity for doing so, provided that grounds for arrest are supplied to the accused.
The order came as the Supreme Court was hearing a plea filed by Mihir Rajesh Shah, the son of a politician who was arrested after he allegedly ran his BMW over a woman in Mumbai last year. After the Bombay High Court denied him bail in November 2024, he approached the Supreme Court.
Shah’s plea argued that he was never provided with grounds for arrest. While the top court dismissed the plea, it took up the case to settle the broader question of Article 22(1)’s mandate.
“If the provisions of Article 22(1) are read in a restrictive manner, its intended purpose of securing personal liberty would not be achieved rather curtailed and put to disuse…,” the judgment said.
Also Read: Compromise can’t obliterate criminal liability in cheating case when public interest is involved—HC
‘Important reset’
Advocate Nikhil Jain, representing an accused whose appeals were merged with Shah’s plea, described the court’s ruling as an “important reset” for arrest procedures in India.
“The right to receive the grounds for arrest in writing, and in a language understood by the accused flows directly from Article 22(1). This is not just a technical requirement but it applies to every arrest under the BNS or a special statute. Failure to furnish written grounds is now a clear constitutional infringement of Article 22(1),” Jain told ThePrint.
He explained how the requirement was, in practice, limited to making arrests under PMLA or other special statutes.
“In economic offences, documentary evidence forms the basis of prosecution. ED (Enforcement Directorate) cannot rely on oral disclosure now and written grounds have to exist at the very moment one’s liberty is being taken away,” Jain explained.
The advocate said that if a person is released owing to unconstitutionality of the arrest, “the prosecution is not permanently paralysed.”
“It (authorities) can still get custody after furnishing the proper written grounds and demonstrating necessity. Not only does this preserve continuity in investigation, but it also places a greater responsibility on courts going forward to ensure that this provision is not used as a tactical workaround,” he added.
The ruling “resets the moral architecture of arrests” to show that an “arrest cannot precede constitutional compliance”, the advocate said, adding: “This is not just criminal procedure reform, it’s a reinsertion of limits on state power.”