Handcuffing Accused While He Is In A Hospital Bed Violates His Fundamental Right To Dignity: Supreme Court

The Court allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant alleging violation of his right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution as he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest. The Court directed the immediate release of the Appellant and reprimanded the Haryana Police for violations of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh gave separate but concurring Judgments. The Court held that “only on the basis of a vague entry in the police diary, we cannot accept that compliance with Article 22(1) can be inferred. No contemporaneous documents have been put on record wherein the grounds of arrest have been noted…Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that the arrest of the appellant was rendered illegal on account of failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the appellant as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution.”

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Shyam Divan represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and Basant R. appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appellant was arrested in connection with an FIR registered for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. He alleged that he was taken into custody without being informed of the grounds or reasons for his arrest, in violation of his fundamental rights.

The Appellant had filed a Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking release on the grounds that his arrest was patently illegal. However, the High Court dismissed his Petition, holding “The allegations about non-supply of arrest, is simply bald.”

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court referred to the “shocking treatment” given to the Appellant by the police. He was taken to a hospital while he was handcuffed and he was chained to the hospital bed. “This itself is a violation of the fundamental right of the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to live with dignity is a part of the rights guaranteed under Article 21,” it remarked.

The Court explained that the High Court had “unfortunately” equated information given regarding the Appellant’s arrest with the grounds of arrest.

“The observation that the allegation of nonsupply of the grounds of arrest made by the appellant is a bald allegation is completely uncalled for. All courts, including the High Court, have a duty to uphold fundamental rights. Once a violation of a fundamental right under Article 22(1) was alleged, it was the duty of the High Court to go into the said contention and decide in one way or the other,” it further explained.

When a violation of Article 22(1) is alleged with respect to grounds of arrest, the Bench stated that there can be two contentions raised:

• “That the arrested person was not informed of the grounds of arrest, or
• Purported information of grounds of arrest does not contain any ground of arrest.”

As far as the first contention is concerned, the Bench explained that the person who is arrested can discharge his burden by simply alleging that grounds of arrest were not informed to him. “If such an allegation is made in the pleadings, the entire burden is on the arresting agency or the State to satisfy the court that effective compliance was made with the requirement of Article 22(1). Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is completely erroneous,” it remarked.

The Court directed the State Police to issue guidelines/departmental instructions to the police:

• “To ensure that the act of handcuffing an accused while he is on a hospital bed and tying him to the hospital bed is not committed again.
• To ensure that the constitutional safeguards under Article 22 are strictly followed. If necessary, the State Government shall amend the existing Rules/guidelines.”

Consequently, the Court held, “Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that the arrest of the appellant was rendered illegal on account of failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the appellant as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 162)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Shyam Divan; Advocates Vishal Gosain, Anuroop Chakravarti, M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Archit Singh, Zinnea Mehta and Athira G. Nair

Respondents: Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and Basant R.; AAGs Deepak Thukral and Arun Tewatia; Advocates Suhaan Mukerji, Adarsh Kumar, Sayandeep Pahari, Kartikeye Dang, Shariq Ansari, Tanmay Sinha, Saurabh Sachdeva, Pragya Upadhyay, Drishti Saraf, Raunak Arora, Sumedha Tuli, Kavinesh Rm, Naman Vashishtha, Sahil A. Garg Narwala, Shikhar Singhal, Honey Gola, Dipesh Singhal, Shourya Godara, Kapil Gaba and Pavitra Singh Sindhu; AOR ​​Akshay Amritanshu

Click here to read/download the Judgment