Reiterating its earlier orders, the Supreme Court (SC) 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. 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.
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 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),” said the Supreme Court, citing various orders passed earlier. 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, adding 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 merely reading out the grounds to the arrested person; such an approach would be antithetical 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 arresting 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 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.
