Top Court makes written communication of ‘arrest grounds’ mandatory for all offences

New Delhi: In a significant judgment reinforcing constitutional protections for personal liberty, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that every person who is arrested must be provided with the written grounds of arrest in a language they understand, regardless of the nature of the offence or the statute invoked.

A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the ruling in ‘Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra’, a case that arose from the high-profile Mumbai BMW hit-and-run incident of July 2024. The verdict, running 52 pages and authored by Justice Masih, interpreted Article 22(1) of the Constitution as mandating not only that an arrested person be informed “as soon as may be” of the grounds of arrest, but that this information be furnished in a form that can be clearly understood.

“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 bench stated.

The court clarified that non-supply of the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of arrest would not automatically invalidate the detention if the written grounds are furnished “within a reasonable time and in any case two hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the magistrate for remand proceedings.”

The ruling further held that this constitutional requirement applies “in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).” If the arresting officer is unable to immediately provide written reasons, they may communicate the grounds orally, but a written version must follow within the specified timeframe.

In a strong direction, the court said that failure to comply with this requirement would render both the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, giving the person the right to be released. “Mere communication of the grounds in a language not understood by the person arrested does not fulfil the constitutional mandate under Article 22,” the judgment observed, adding that supplying such information only in an unfamiliar language “renders the constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22.”

The bench underlined that the purpose of this safeguard is to ensure that the person taken into custody can comprehend the basis of the allegations made against them. “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,” the court said.

The case before the court stemmed from an appeal by Mihir Rajesh Shah, the accused in the Mumbai BMW hit-and-run case, who challenged his arrest on the ground that he had not been supplied written reasons for his detention. While the Bombay High Court had acknowledged procedural irregularities, it had upheld the arrest citing the seriousness of the offence. The Supreme Court, however, examined the broader constitutional question rather than the specific facts of the case.

The judgment also addressed two key issues: whether furnishing the grounds of arrest in every case under all laws, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, was mandatory, and whether an arrest made without immediate written communication of such grounds would be invalid. The court held that the requirement is mandatory but can be complied with shortly after arrest, provided it is done in time for the accused to know the charges before being presented for remand.

To ensure uniform compliance, the top court directed its registry to circulate the judgment to all High Courts and to the Chief Secretaries of every state and Union Territory.