The Supreme Court on Thursday held that police and investigating agencies must provide written grounds of arrest to every arrested person as soon as possible, regardless of the offence or statute under which the arrest is made [Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih said the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental and mandatory safeguard under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and applies to all offences including those under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

In certain exceptional situations when it is not possible to supply written grounds immediately, the ground should be conveyed orally to the accused.

Even in such cases, written grounds must be furnished to the accused within a reasonable time and no later than two hours before the accused is produced before the magistrate for remand proceedings, the Court ordered.

The judgment came in a batch of appeals arising from the 2024 Worli BMW crash case in Mumbai.

The appeals raised a question of law - whether not providing written grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) and renders an arrest illegal.

The Bench said Article 22(1) casts a mandatory, unqualified duty on the State to inform a person of the reasons for their arrest as soon as possible.

"The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023)," the Court held.

The Court described this right as an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21, emphasising that an arrest made without following this safeguard is unconstitutional.

"If a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as may be, it would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest illegal," the judgement said.

Explaining how the right must be exercised, the Court held that every arrested person must receive the grounds of arrest in writing, and the document must be in a language that the person understands.

"The grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrestee in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of facts constituting grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in a language which he/she understands," the Bench said.

The judges added that merely reading out the reasons for arrest does not fulfil the constitutional requirement.

"The objective of the constitutional mandate would not be fulfilled by mere reading out the grounds to the arrested person, such an approach would be antithesis to the purpose of Article 22(1)," the judgment said.

The Court noted that written communication is important not only to protect the rights of the arrested person but also to help investigating agencies prove that proper procedure was followed if challenged later.

At the same time, the Bench recognised that in certain exceptional circumstances, it may not be immediately possible to hand over a written document - for instance, when a crime is committed in front of a police officer and immediate arrest is required.

"In exceptional circumstances such as offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police officer or other person making the arrest to orally convey the same," the Court said.

Even in such cases, the Court said the written grounds must be supplied within a reasonable time and no later than two hours before the accused is produced before the magistrate for remand proceedings.

"The two-hour threshold before production for remand thus strikes a judicious balance between safeguarding the arrestee’s constitutional rights under Article 22(1) and preserving the operational continuity of criminal investigations," the Bench observed.

The Court said this minimum time frame would allow the arrested person and their lawyer to prepare for the remand hearing effectively.

It made clear that failure to provide written grounds within this time limit would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

"If the above said schedule for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling the release of the arrestee," the Bench said.

In such a situation, the investigating agency may later seek custody again, but only after providing written grounds along with reasons for delay, which the magistrate must decide within a week.

Summarising its directions, the Court laid down four binding rules for all arrests going forward:

(i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);

(ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands;

(iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate; and

(iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.

The Court directed its registry to circulate copies of the judgment to all Registrar Generals of High Courts and Chief Secretaries of States and Union Territories to ensure uniform implementation.

The appellants were represented by Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhri along with advocates Siddharth Sharma, Ishika Chauhan, Aishwarya, Smriti Churiwal, Akshada Pasi, Vishesh Vijay Kalra, Sonia Sharma, Jaiveer Kant, Rishi Sehgal, Nikhil Jain, Muskaan Khurana, Divya Jain, Karl P Rustomkhan, Vaibhav Jagtap, Shubham Saxena and Ashish Pandey.

The respondents were represented by advocates Rukhmini Bobde, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Sourav Singh, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Shrirang B Varma, Amlaan Kumar, Jatin Dhamija and Vinayak Aren.

[Read Judgment]