Failure to inform arrest grounds violates rights: SC

New Delhi The Supreme Court on Friday reasserted the fundamental duty of the State and investigating agencies to inform detainees of the grounds for their arrest, saying that “the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second” in cases of wrongful arrests.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh underscored that the obligation to inform detainees of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and must be communicated clearly and effectively to the arrested person. It also stressed the responsibility of magistrates to ensure compliance during remand proceedings, warning that any violation could warrant the release of the accused or justify bail, even in cases with statutory restrictions. Article 22(1) mandates that detainees must be informed promptly of the grounds of their arrest.

“If the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. 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. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second,” held the bench.

It is the obligation of all the courts to uphold the fundamental rights, the bench said, adding that statutory restrictions under stringent laws such as Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA, do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.

The bench stressed that the information must be communicated effectively and, in a language, the arrested person understands. “The information on grounds of arrest must be conveyed in a manner that effectively imparts sufficient knowledge of the basic facts to the arrested person. The mode of communication must fulfill the objective of this constitutional safeguard,” it held.

The bench further underlined that the burden of proving compliance with Article 22(1) lies with the investigating agency. “Failure to comply constitutes a violation of both Article 22(1) and the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21, thereby vitiating the arrest,” it noted.

Citing its previous judgments in then cases of Pankaj Bansal (2023), V Senthil Balaji (2024) and Prabir Purkayastha (2024), the top court reaffirmed the State’s obligation to uphold personal liberty and due process. These rulings establish that failure to provide written grounds for arrest constitutes a direct violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, with no exceptions.

Justice Singh, writing a separate opinion to supplement the common judgment of the bench, expanded on these principles, ruling that non-compliance with Section 50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) may also invalidate an arrest.

“The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the CrPC, making it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person, is to ensure that they would able to take immediate and prompt actions to secure the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. The arrested person, because of his detention, may not have immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his release,” said justice Singh.

The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal by Vihaan Kumar, who challenged his arrest before the Punjab & Haryana high court. Accused of cheating and fraud, Kumar argued that he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest. The high court dismissed his petition, relying on the State’s version of events, but the Supreme Court overturned this ruling and ordered his immediate release.

The judgment was also critical of the treatment meted out to Kumar by the police, noting that he was taken to a hospital while handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed. “The right to live with dignity is a part of the rights guaranteed under Article 21. The state government must issue necessary directions to ensure that such illegalities are never committed again,” the judgment stated.

In its final orders, the Supreme Court declared Kumar’s arrest unlawful and directed his immediate release. It also instructed the state of Haryana to issue guidelines preventing the unlawful handcuffing of accused persons and ensuring strict adherence to constitutional safeguards under Article 22.