Written Grounds Of Arrest Must Be Furnished In Language Arrestee Understands; Otherwise Arrest & Remand Illegal : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that failure to supply the written grounds of arrest to an arrestee in the language in which he/she understands renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

“mere communication of the grounds in a language not understood by the person arrested does not fulfil the constitutional mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The failure to supply such grounds in a language understood by the arrestee renders the constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes the personal liberty of the person as guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The objective of the constitutional mandate is to place the person in a position to comprehend the basis of the allegations levelled against him and it can only be realised when the grounds are furnished in a language understood by the person, thereby enabling him to exercise his rights effectively.”, the court observed.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih made this observation while delivering an important ruling, extending the mandate of furnishing written grounds of arrest to an arrestee for all offences committed under IPC/BNS, as was earlier limited to UAPA/PMLA offences.

“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 mode of communication ought to be such that it must achieve the intended purpose of the constitutional safeguard. 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). There is no harm in providing the grounds of arrest in writing in the language the arrestee understands, this approach would not only fulfil the true intent of the constitutional mandate but will also be beneficial for the investigating agency to prove that the grounds of arrest were informed to the arrestee when a challenge is made to the arrest on the plea of non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest.”, the court said.

“This Court is of the opinion that to achieve the intended objective of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the grounds of arrest must be informed to the arrested person in each and every case without exception and the mode of the communication of such grounds must be in writing in the language he understands.”, the court added.

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 the petitioner's alleged attempts to evade custody.

Challenging the High Court's decision not to declare his arrest 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.

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.

Cause Title: MIHIR RAJESH SHAH VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066

Click here to read/download the judgment

Also From Judgment: If Written Grounds Of Arrest Not Furnished Atleast Two Hrs Before Production Of Accused Before Magistrate, The Arrest And Subsequent Remand Illegal: Supreme Court