“Failure To Inform Arrest Grounds Violates Rights”: SC

The Supreme Court, in a landmark pronouncement, reaffirmed the non-derogable nature of an individual’s fundamental right to be apprised of the grounds of arrest.

The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and N. Kotiswar Singh, held that non-compliance with this mandate not only renders the arrest constitutionally infirm but also necessitates the immediate release of the accused, regardless of statutory bail constraints.

The court emphasized that an arrest effectuated without due communication of its grounds is legally void. “Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second,” the judgment underscored.

Analyzing constitutional imperatives, the bench highlighted the jurisprudential synergy between Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) and Article 22 (safeguard against arbitrary detention) of the Constitution, alongside statutory provisions such as Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and its reconfigured counterpart, Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS). These provisions, the court held, unequivocally prohibit the detention of an individual without explicit disclosure of the reasons.

Reaffirming the 1962 constitutional bench precedent in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, the court observed that the failure to promptly communicate the grounds of arrest constitutes a direct infringement of the rights enshrined under Article 22(1). “Such a violation not only subverts the constitutional order but also undermines the integrity of due process,” stated Justice Oka, who authored the principal judgment.

To ensure strict adherence to constitutional and procedural safeguards, the bench delineated the following directives:

– The obligation to inform an arrested individual of the grounds of arrest is an absolute and non-negotiable constitutional mandate under Article 22(1).
– Such information must be conveyed in a language that the accused fully understands.
– In instances where an accused alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), the onus of proving adherence rests exclusively on the investigating authority.
– Breaches of Articles 21 and 22(1) amount to grave violations of fundamental rights, thereby invalidating any subsequent remand orders. However, such violations do not per se vitiate the overall investigation, chargesheet, or trial proceedings.
– Judicial magistrates must exercise vigilance in verifying compliance with Article 22(1) during remand proceedings.
– Where a violation of Article 22(1) is established, courts are mandated to order the accused’s immediate release, even if statutory restrictions on bail are applicable.

Applying these principles, the bench declared the arrest of Vihaan Kumar, who had been charged with financial fraud, to be unconstitutional. Consequently, the Haryana government was directed to release him forthwith, as he had not been apprised of the grounds of his detention.

The court further expressed profound dismay over Kumar’s inhumane treatment, specifically his handcuffing and chaining to a hospital bed, deeming such actions a flagrant violation of Article 21.

In response, the court mandated that the Haryana government issue categorical directives to law enforcement agencies, ensuring full compliance with Article 22 and explicitly prohibiting the restraint of hospitalized detainees.

While nullifying the arrest, the bench clarified that its decision does not impinge upon the substantive merits of the pending case or the legitimacy of the chargesheet. This ruling, the court affirmed, upholds the procedural sanctity of criminal adjudication while reinforcing the fundamental tenets of constitutional jurisprudence.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International