Supreme Court Mandates Written Grounds of Arrest in All Cases: A Milestone in Constitutional Safeguards

In a historic expansion of constitutional protections, the Supreme Court of India has held that every person arrested — regardless of the nature of the offence or the statute under which the arrest is made — must be furnished with written grounds of arrest.

The ruling marks a critical evolution in Indian criminal jurisprudence, strengthening Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, and preventing arbitrary and unlawful detention by law enforcement agencies.


Bench and Background

A division bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih delivered the ruling. The case arose during the hearing of a petition filed by Mihir Shah, the accused in the July 2024 Worli BMW hit-and-run case, who contended that he was not supplied with written grounds for his arrest.

While the Court clarified that its ruling would not interfere with the Bombay High Court’s order upholding Shah’s arrest, it used the occasion to address a broader constitutional issue — whether written grounds of arrest are mandatory across all laws, not merely under special statutes like UAPA or PMLA.


Constitutional Mandate: Articles 21 and 22(1)

The Court grounded its reasoning in the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and the right to be informed of the reasons for arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

  • Article 21: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

  • Article 22(1): “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest.”

The bench emphasized that informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is not a procedural formality but a mandatory safeguard against arbitrary action. The written communication, it said, is crucial to uphold transparency, fairness, and the right to defend oneself effectively.


Judgment Highlights

  1. Applicability to All Arrests
    The Court categorically ruled that the obligation to provide written grounds of arrest applies in all cases, including offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

    Rejecting the argument that such written grounds were only required under special laws like PMLA or UAPA, the Court held that Article 22(1) cannot be read in a restrictive manner.

  2. Written Communication in Comprehensible Language
    The grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing and in a language understood by the accused. This ensures that the accused can effectively exercise the right to seek legal counsel and challenge the arrest.

  3. Timelines for Compliance
    In exceptional circumstances where the arrest occurs in flagrante delicto (i.e., during the commission of an offence), the grounds may initially be conveyed orally but must be furnished in writing within a reasonable time, and not later than two hours before the arrestee’s production before a magistrate, as required under Article 22(2).

    The failure to comply within this timeline would render both the arrest and the remand illegal, entitling the person to immediate release.

  4. Purpose and Impact
    The Court observed that the intent of Article 22(1) is to ensure that the arrested individual can prepare for defence, consult counsel, and oppose remand or seek bail.
    A failure to provide written grounds would violate both Articles 21 and 22(1) and invalidate the arrest as being unconstitutional.


Judicial Precedents Referenced

The judgment builds upon and extends the principles laid down in earlier landmark decisions:

  • Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023) — The Supreme Court had held that under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing.

  • Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) — The Court reiterated that the UAPA also requires written communication of arrest grounds, reinforcing the fundamental nature of this right.

The present ruling, however, universalizes this protection, applying it to all arrests under all laws, including general criminal law, thereby harmonizing constitutional principles with everyday policing practice.


Statutory and Procedural Context

  • Article 22(1) and (2) – Mandate informing the accused of arrest grounds and production before a magistrate within 24 hours.

  • Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 / Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Authorizes arrest by police officers under specified conditions but does not explicitly mandate written communication.

  • Supreme Court’s ruling now fills this legislative gap, making written disclosure a constitutional obligation rather than a procedural discretion.


Implications for Law Enforcement

This judgment significantly alters arrest procedures across India:

  • Police officers must now record and furnish written grounds of arrest at the earliest opportunity.

  • Failure to comply will result in the arrest being declared illegal, and the arrestee’s immediate release.

  • It also increases accountability and reduces the potential for abuse of power or politically motivated arrests.

The Court directed its registry to circulate the ruling to all High Courts, and to the Chief Secretaries of States and Union Territories, ensuring uniform enforcement.


Significance and Constitutional Ethos

By extending the written communication requirement to all arrests, the Supreme Court has reinforced India’s constitutional vision of personal liberty. The ruling aligns with the broader judicial philosophy that procedural fairness is essential to the protection of life and liberty.

The judgment resonates with earlier observations in:

  • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable.

  • DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) – where the Court laid down arrest-related guidelines, emphasizing the need to safeguard citizens against custodial abuse.


Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Mihir Shah case marks a transformative moment in constitutional criminal jurisprudence. By mandating written grounds of arrest for all cases, the Court has elevated transparency and due process from statutory exceptions to universal constitutional requirements.

This ruling not only curbs arbitrary police power but also restores public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system, ensuring that liberty remains the rule and arrest the exception.



Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Equality Before Law

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

India vs Pressure: Why New Delhi Is Not Backing Down on Russian Oil Amid Global Scrutiny