If Written Grounds Of Arrest Not Furnished At Least Two Hrs Before Production Of Accused Before Magistrate, Arrest & Remand Illegal: Supreme Court
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday (November 6) extended the requirement of providing the grounds of arrest in writing to apply to all offences under the IPC/BNS, and not just to cases arising under special statutes like the PMLA or UAPA.
A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held that the failure to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee, in the language he/she understands, would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
“The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest, in the light of and under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard which has been included in part III of the Constitution under the head of Fundamental Rights. Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as maybe, 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 court said.
Important points to be noted, as summed up by the Court:
"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.
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."
Background
The case arose from the arrest of the petitioner, accused in a high-profile hit-and-run incident in Mumbai. The Bombay High Court had earlier acknowledged procedural lapses in the arrest but declined to declare it illegal, citing the gravity of the offence and petitioner's alleged attempts to evade custody.
Challenging the High Court's decision to not declare his arrest as illegal for want of grounds of arrest supplied to him, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
The issue was whether the right to be informed of arrest grounds required written communication in all cases, and what consequences would follow if that requirement was not met.
Decision
Declaring the petitioner's arrest as illegal, the judgment authored by Justice Masih held that informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental, non-derogable right under Article 22(1), flowing from the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.
“This is not a mere formality,” the court observed, stressing that it enables the arrested person to understand the accusation, seek legal advice, challenge police custody, and apply for bail.
Oral Intimation Allowed Only in Exigency, With a Strict Deadline
The Court created a narrow exception for "exceptional circumstances," such as a crime being committed in front of a police officer. In such cases, oral communication of the grounds is permissible at the time of arrest. However, the Court imposed a strict and specific deadline for subsequent written compliance, stating:
"Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to production of the arrestee before the magistrate for remand proceedings.", the court said.
Failure to Provide Grounds of Arrest at the Time of Arrest Will Not Invalidate the Arrest If They Are Supplied Within a Reasonable Time — No Later Than Two Hours Before the Arrestee Is Produced for Remand.
“non supply of grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee prior to or immediately after arrest would not vitiate such arrest on the grounds of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) provided the said grounds are supplied in writing within a reasonable time and in any case two hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the magistrate for remand proceedings.”, the court said.
While the petitioner was already on interim bail, the Court made his release absolute, restricting its analysis to the legal aspect of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest to the petitioner.
The Court further directed that copies of the judgment be circulated to all High Courts and State Governments for immediate implementation.
Cause Title: MIHIR RAJESH SHAH VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066
Click here to read/download the judgment
Appearance:
Amicus Curiae Mr. Shri Singh,Adv. Ms. Tusharika Mattoo,Adv. Mr. Siddharth Satija,Adv. Mr. Abhinav Sekhri,Adv.
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sharma, AOR Mr. Jay Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Disha Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Rishi Bhuta, Adv. Ms. Ishika Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Ms. Arveen Sekhon, Adv. Ms. Muskaan Khurana, Adv. Mr. Karl P. Rustomkhan, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Jagtap, Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR Mr. Shubham Saxena, Adv. Mr. Anmol Goyal, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Akshit Chauhan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Aren, Adv. Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jatin Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv.