Introduction
Date of the Judgment: February 07, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 162
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.
Can an arrest be deemed illegal if the arrested person is not informed of the grounds for their arrest? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr. The court examined the constitutional safeguards provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the fundamental right of an arrestee to be informed of the reasons for their arrest. This judgment clarifies the mandatory nature of this right and its implications for the legality of an arrest.
The bench comprised Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. Justice Abhay S. Oka delivered the judgment, with a concurring opinion from Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
Case Background
The case originated from FIR No. 121 of 2023, dated March 25, 2023, registered against Vihaan Kumar (the appellant) for offenses under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant claimed he was arrested on June 10, 2024, at approximately 10:30 a.m. at his office in Gurugram, Haryana, and taken to DLF Police Station. He alleged that he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on June 11, 2024, at 3:30 p.m., thereby violating Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The appellant contended that the remand report and the Magistrate’s order did not mention the time of arrest.
A significant factual aspect was the appellant’s hospitalization post-arrest at PGIMS, Rohtak, where he was allegedly handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed. The Medical Superintendent of PGIMS admitted to this, leading to the suspension and departmental inquiry against the officials responsible for escorting the appellant.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 25, 2023 | FIR No. 121/2023 registered against Vihaan Kumar under various sections of the IPC. |
| June 10, 2024 (10:30 a.m.) | Appellant claims he was arrested at his office in Gurugram. |
| June 10, 2024 (6:00 p.m.) | According to the 1st respondent, the appellant was arrested. |
| June 11, 2024 (3:30 p.m.) | Appellant claims he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate. |
| October 4, 2024 | Supreme Court notes the appellant’s hospitalization and alleged handcuffing/chaining to the hospital bed. Notice issued to Medical Superintendent of PGIMS. |
| October 21, 2024 | Medical Superintendent of PGIMS admits the appellant was handcuffed and chained to the bed. |
| October 23, 2024 | Deputy Commissioner of Police orders departmental inquiry against officials who escorted the appellant. |
| October 24, 2024 | Affidavit filed by Shri Abhimanyu, HPS, stating the suspension of officials. |
| August 30, 2024 | Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court. |
| February 07, 2025 | Supreme Court delivers judgment in the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The judgment under appeal was the order dated August 30, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appellant challenged his arrest, alleging violations of Article 22(1) and Article 22(2) of the Constitution, as well as Section 57 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court heard the appeal against this order.
Legal Framework
The legal framework central to this case includes:
- Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India: Guarantees that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
- Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Specifies when police may arrest without a warrant. In this case, clause (ba) of sub-Section (1) of Section 41 is applicable.
- Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Requires that every police officer or other person arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offense for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.
Article 22 of the Constitution provides fundamental rights to persons arrested, ensuring protection against arbitrary detention. It aligns with the broader constitutional principles of personal liberty and due process under Article 21.
Section 41 of CrPC reads thus:
“41. When police may arrest without warrant.—(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person —(ba) against whom credible information has been received that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years whether with or without fine or with death sentence and the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of that information that such person has committed the said offence;”
Article 22 of the Constitution reads thus:
“22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases .—(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 nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”
Section 50 of CrPC reads thus:
“50. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail .—(1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel):
- ✓ The appellant was not informed about the grounds or reasons for his arrest, violating Section 50 of CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
- ✓ The counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police did not deny the appellant’s claim of not being informed of the grounds of arrest.
- ✓ Relied on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576] and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254] to argue that failure to comply with Article 22(1) and Section 50 of CrPC renders the arrest illegal.
- ✓ There was a violation of Article 22(2) as the appellant was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest.
Respondent’s Arguments:
State of Haryana (Shri Basant R., learned senior counsel):
- ✓ The argument before the High Court was that the grounds of arrest were not handed over in writing, not that they were not orally communicated.
- ✓ Article 22(1) and Section 50 of CrPC do not require written communication of the grounds of arrest.
- ✓ The arrest memo contains details of the offense, time, and date of arrest.
- ✓ An entry was made in the daily diary at 6:10 p.m. on June 10, 2024, noting that the appellant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest.
- ✓ The grounds of arrest are set out in the remand report dated June 11, 2024.
- ✓ There was a delay of more than 2 months in raising the contention regarding the violation of Article 22(1).
2nd Respondent (Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel):
- ✓ Supported the submissions of the 1st respondent.
- ✓ The case diary maintained by the police is a contemporaneous record that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the appellant.
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Violation of Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC |
✓ Appellant was not informed of the grounds of arrest. ✓ Failure to provide reasons renders arrest illegal. ✓ Specific averment in petition not denied. |
✓ Grounds of arrest were communicated orally. ✓ No requirement for written communication. ✓ Arrest memo contains details; case diaries examined. ✓ Entry made in daily diary at 6:10 p.m. on June 10, 2024. |
| Violation of Article 22(2) | ✓ Not produced before Magistrate within 24 hours. | ✓ Compliance made with Article 22(2). |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the appellant’s right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution was violated due to not being informed of the grounds for his arrest.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt With It | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant’s right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution was violated due to not being informed of the grounds for his arrest. | The Court held that the arrest was illegal due to failure to communicate the grounds of arrest. | The Court found that the appellant had specifically pleaded the violation of Article 22(1), and the respondents failed to prove compliance. The Court emphasized that the grounds of arrest must be effectively communicated in a language the arrestee understands. |
Authorities
The court relied on the following authorities:
- Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576] – Dealt with Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and interpreted Article 22(1) regarding the requirement to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest. The Court emphasized that the mode of conveying information must be meaningful.
- Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254] – Reiterated the view taken in Pankaj Bansal, emphasizing that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing is sacrosanct. Any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand.
- Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra [1962 SCC OnLine SC 117] – The Constitution Bench held that the interpretation of Article 22(5) shall ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the ground of arrest is concerned.
- Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India [(1981) 2 SCC 427] – The Court held that the grounds of detention must be “communicated” to the detenu. “Communicate” is a strong word. It means that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the “grounds” should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576] | Supreme Court of India | Followed. The Court reiterated the importance of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest in a meaningful way. |
| Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254] | Supreme Court of India | Followed. The Court reiterated the view taken in Pankaj Bansal, emphasizing that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing is sacrosanct. |
| Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra [1962 SCC OnLine SC 117] | Supreme Court of India | Followed. The Constitution Bench held that the interpretation of Article 22(5) shall ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the ground of arrest is concerned. |
| Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India [(1981) 2 SCC 427] | Supreme Court of India | Followed. The Court held that the grounds of detention must be “communicated” to the detenu. “Communicate” is a strong word. It means that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the “grounds” should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands. |
Judgment
| Submission | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant was not informed of the grounds of arrest. | Accepted. The Court found that the respondents failed to prove compliance with Article 22(1). |
| Violation of Article 22(1) renders the arrest illegal. | Accepted. The Court held that non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest. |
| The case diary entry proves compliance with Article 22(1). | Rejected. The Court found the entry vague and noted the absence of contemporaneous documents. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576]:* The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful to serve the intended purpose.
- Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254]:* The Court reiterated the view taken in Pankaj Bansal, emphasizing that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing is sacrosanct.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
Several factors weighed heavily in the mind of the Court:
- ✓ The explicit contention by the appellant in the writ petition before the High Court that he was not provided with the grounds or reasons for arrest.
- ✓ The failure of the Assistant Commissioner of Police to address the grounds taken in the writ petition regarding the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest.
- ✓ The admission by the Assistant Commissioner of Police that the grounds of arrest were explained to the appellant’s wife, not to the appellant himself.
- ✓ The absence of any contemporaneous documents wherein the grounds of arrest have been noted.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Failure to communicate grounds of arrest to the appellant | 40% |
| Lack of denial by the respondents regarding the appellant’s claim | 30% |
| Inadequate evidence of compliance with Article 22(1) | 20% |
| Contradictory statements and afterthoughts by the respondents | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 60% |
| Law (consideration of legal aspects) | 40% |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the arrest of the appellant was illegal due to the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court directed the immediate release of the appellant.
The Court stated:
“The requirement of informing a person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement.”
“When 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).”
“Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused.”
The Court also expressed concern over the “shocking treatment” of the appellant, who was handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed, violating his fundamental right under Article 21.
The Court clarified that the finding of the arrest being vitiated would not affect the merits of the chargesheet and the pending case, directing the appellant to attend the trial court regularly and cooperate with the proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1).
- ✓ The information must be communicated effectively in a language the arrestee understands.
- ✓ The burden of proof lies on the investigating agency to demonstrate compliance with Article 22(1).
- ✓ Non-compliance with Article 22(1) renders the arrest illegal and violates the arrestee’s fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- ✓ The State of Haryana shall 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.
- ✓ The State of Haryana shall issue guidelines/departmental instructions to the police to ensure that the constitutional safeguards under Article 22 are strictly followed.
- ✓ The State Government shall amend the existing Rules/guidelines, if necessary.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which mandates informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest, renders the arrest illegal and violates the arrestee’s fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22.
The judgment reinforces and clarifies the existing legal position regarding the mandatory nature of Article 22(1), emphasizing the importance of effective communication of the grounds of arrest in a language the arrestee understands. It does not introduce a new law but reiterates and strengthens the existing constitutional safeguards.
Conclusion
In Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr., the Supreme Court reaffirmed the critical importance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, holding that failure to inform an arrestee of the grounds for their arrest renders the arrest illegal. The Court’s decision underscores the mandatory nature of this constitutional safeguard and its role in protecting individual liberties.
Source: Violation of Article 22