Informing A Person Arrested Of Grounds Of Arrest Is Not A Formality But A Mandatory Requirement Under Article 22(1) Constitution: SC
The Supreme Court held that on the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated.
The Supreme Court held that the requirement of informing a person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
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 clarified that the information about the arrest is completely different from information about the grounds of arrest, therefore, “Mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest.”
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1).”
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 further claimed that:
- He was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, as mandated by Article 22(2) of the Constitution.
- No information regarding the grounds of his arrest was provided to him at any stage.
- He was kept handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed while in police custody.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted that the police had submitted that the appellant’s wife was informed about his arrest. However, the Court explained that the “information about the arrest is completely different from the grounds of arrest.”
The Bench held that “Mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest” and therefore, the “police should always scrupulously comply with the requirements of Article 22”
“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,” the Court held.
The Court clarified that when an arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1).
The Bench also 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 directed the State Police to issue guidelines/departmental instructions:
- “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, “When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.”
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
