SC: Informing accused grounds of arrest constitutional requirement
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has declared that informing an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement, not a mere formality.
In a landmark judgement, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh ruled that failing to communicate arrest grounds violates fundamental rights under Article 22 of the Constitution.
“The requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement,” the court stated.
The verdict came in a case involving Vihaan Kumar, who was arrested in a financial fraud case. The court found his arrest unconstitutional and ordered his immediate release.
“If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee,” Justice Oka said.
The judgement emphasised that the information must be provided effectively in a language the arrested person understands, ensuring they have sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the arrest grounds.
The court also highlighted the connection with Article 21, stating that no person can be deprived of liberty except through legal procedure. When arrest grounds are not communicated promptly, it violates both Article 22(1) and Article 21.
“When an arrested person is produced before a judicial magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made,” the bench added.
The court placed the burden of proving compliance squarely on the police, mandating that when an arrested person alleges non-compliance, law enforcement must demonstrate they followed constitutional requirements.
The judgement was particularly critical of the treatment of the accused, condemning the practice of handcuffing and chaining him to a hospital bed. “We have no hesitation in holding the arrest of the appellant was rendered illegal,” the court said.
Moreover, the bench criticised the high court’s approach, stating that all courts have a duty to uphold fundamental rights. When a violation of Article 22(1) is alleged, courts must thoroughly investigate and decide the matter.
The court directed the Haryana government to issue guidelines preventing such constitutional violations, ordering a copy of the judgement be sent to the state home secretary.
Article 22(1) explicitly protects arrested individuals, stating they must be informed of arrest grounds and allowed to consult a legal practitioner of their choice.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual liberties and ensuring law enforcement adheres to constitutional safeguards during arrests.
