Beyond Formality: Why Written Grounds Of Arrest Must Reach Both Accused And Their Families

The guarantee under Article 22(1) of the Constitution — that no person shall be arrested without being informed of the grounds of arrest — is one of the most vital protections for personal liberty. Yet, for decades, this right was interpreted narrowly, satisfied by mere oral communication, often reduced to a ritualistic formality. The Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence, however, marks a decisive shift. Through a series of rulings culminating in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169, the Court has made it clear that the grounds of arrest must be supplied in writing, and not merely conveyed orally.

What makes Vihaan Kumar truly significant is the concurring opinion of Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, who advanced this principle further by insisting that written grounds of arrest must not only be handed over to the accused, but also to the relatives or friends notified under Section 50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This extension is crucial, for the accused in custody may often be disoriented, intimidated, or incapable of remembering or retaining the details of the grounds read over to them. Supplying the grounds in writing to their family or nominated friend ensures that the right under Article 22(1) is real and effective, not illusory.

The Evolution of the Law

The path to this position can be traced through several judgments. In Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra (1962) 2 SCR 918, the Court held that grounds must be communicated in a language understood by the detainee, rejecting a perfunctory English intimation to a Hindi-speaking accused. In Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 427, the Court reinforced that the communication must be meaningful and effective, not a mere formality.

The principle took a sharper turn in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 376, where the arrest was invalidated altogether because the accused had not been supplied with written grounds. This judgment firmly established that written communication is not optional but mandatory.

The decisive development, however, came in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844, where the Court confronted a recurring problem — disputes over whether the accused had actually been supplied with the grounds of arrest. In paragraph 42, the Court proposed a clear solution:

“The most proper and effective way to avoid such confusion is to hand over a written copy of the grounds under acknowledgment.”

This simple procedural step transforms an often-disputed oral assertion into a verifiable safeguard. By requiring acknowledgment, the Court ensured that compliance could be tested before a magistrate.

If this logic applies to the accused, it applies with equal, if not greater, force to their relatives or friends. Section 50A of the CrPC already mandates that one such person must be informed of the arrest. Extending the principle of Pankaj Bansal to requires that these relatives or friends be furnished with written grounds — and that acknowledgement be taken — to ensure that the safeguard is not hollow but enforceable.

Justice Kotiswar Singh's Contribution in Vihaan Kumar

In Vihaan Kumar, Justice Abhay S. Oka, writing for the Court, reaffirmed that written grounds must be given to the accused. Justice Kotiswar Singh, however, went further. He argued that Article 22(1) and Section 50A must be read together to require that relatives or friends are also given written grounds of arrest. Without this, he warned, the purpose of notifying them of the arrest would be reduced to a formality, incapable of equipping them to assist the accused in securing legal remedies.

This view is not just an abstract proposition. In custody, an accused is often vulnerable, under duress, and unable to retain or reproduce the details of what is communicated to them. Supplying the grounds of arrest in writing to their relatives or friends ensures that the family can brief lawyers, prepare bail applications, or challenge the legality of arrest. It transforms Section 50A from a bare notification requirement into a meaningful safeguard.

Reinforcement in Kaisar Reddy

The significance of Justice Kotiswar Singh's opinion was further underscored in Kaisar Reddy v. State of Telangana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 628, where Justice J.B. Pardiwala endorsed his reasoning, holding that extending the supply of written grounds to relatives and friends is “not only desirable but constitutionally necessary.” This endorsement shows that what began as a concurring opinion is now crystallising into a principle of broader judicial consensus.

The Role of Magistrates

If written grounds are supplied both to the accused and their relatives, and acknowledgment is taken, compliance becomes a matter of record rather than assertion. Magistrates at the remand stage can then demand to see these acknowledgments. If they are absent, the magistrate has clear grounds to refuse remand.

This shifts the burden from vague police claims to verifiable proof. As para 42 of Pankaj Bansal demonstrates, acknowledgment eliminates confusion. The same acknowledgment, extended to relatives and friends, should become a mandatory part of police procedure. Magistrates, as guardians of liberty, must insist upon it.

Comparative Perspective

The Indian position is in harmony with international standards. The UK's Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 requires written notice of reasons for arrest, while the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly held under Article 5 of the European Convention that detainees must receive “prompt and precise” written reasons for their detention. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence is therefore not an outlier but part of a global trajectory towards enforceable, written safeguards against arbitrary arrest.

Why This Must Become the Norm

Despite these clear judicial pronouncements, practice across most States remains deficient. Police continue to rely on oral intimation and boilerplate arrest memos. Families are rarely given written grounds, and magistrates often overlook these requirements. The result is that a constitutional safeguard remains, in reality, a paper promise.

The jurisprudence from Harikisan to Kaisar Reddy offers a way forward. Justice Kotiswar Singh's vision, strengthened by the reasoning in Pankaj Bansal and affirmed in Kaisar Reddy, provides the blueprint: written grounds of arrest must be furnished not only to the accused but also to their relatives or friends, and acknowledgements must be made part of the judicial record.

Practical Compliance Solution – Model Form

To bridge the gap between principle and practice, I have tried to create a Model Written Grounds of Arrest & Acknowledgement Form that can be incorporated into police standing orders and used for magistrate verification.

WRITTEN GROUNDS OF ARREST & ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM

Police Station: _______________________FIR No.: _____________________________Date & Time of Arrest: ________________Arresting Officer: _____________________ (Name, Rank & Badge No.)

I. GROUNDS OF ARREST (As Mandated by Article 22(1) & Section 47/48 of the BNSS)(In a language understood by the accused and nominated person)

“You are being arrested because:

___________________________________________________________”

II. ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY ACCUSED

I, [Full Name of Accused], acknowledge receipt of a copy of the written grounds of my arrest.

Signature/Thumb Impression: _____________________Date & Time: _____________________

III. NOMINATED PERSON UNDER SECTION 50A CrPC

Name: ________________________________________Relationship: _________________________________Address: ______________________________________Contact No.: _________________________________

IV. ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY NOMINATED PERSON

I, [Name], acknowledge that I have been informed of the arrest and have received a copy of the written grounds of arrest.

Signature/Thumb Impression: _____________________Date & Time: _____________________

V. CERTIFICATION BY ARRESTING OFFICER

I certify that:

1. Written grounds were prepared before/at the time of arrest.
2. Copies were given to both the accused and nominated person.
3. Acknowledgments were obtained.

Signature: _____________________Name & Rank: _____________________Date & Time: _____________________

VI. FOR MAGISTRATE'S VERIFICATION AT FIRST REMAND

Checklist:

•  Written grounds provided to accused (with acknowledgment).
•  Written grounds provided to nominated person (with acknowledgment).

Remarks of Magistrate: _______________________________Signature: _____________________Date: _____________________

The trajectory of the law is clear. What began as a requirement of oral communication has evolved into a constitutional obligation of written delivery. With Pankaj Bansal offering the mechanism of acknowledgment, Vihaan Kumar extending the right to families, and Kaisar Reddy reinforcing its necessity, the time has come to make this practice universal.

Supplying written grounds of arrest, acknowledged by both the accused and their relatives or friends, should not be left to the discretion of the police. It must become the normative practice across India, with magistrates enforcing it rigorously. Only then will Article 22(1) fulfil its promise as a real safeguard of liberty. The message from the Supreme Court is unambiguous — this is not a courtesy, it is a constitutional mandate. It is time law enforcement, magistrates, and the justice system at large treated it as such.

Author is mainly practicing in the Supreme Court of India and High Court of Delhi and Calcutta. Views Are Personal.