The Supreme Court of India on Thursday delivered a landmark judgment clarifying and strengthening the constitutional rights of an arrested person, holding that the “grounds of arrest” must be communicated in writing in all cases, including those under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) or the preceding Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih settled a significant question of law. The Court ruled that while exigencies might prevent grounds from being served at the moment of arrest, they must be supplied in writing at least two hours before the arrestee is produced for remand.
The Court was deciding a batch of appeals, with Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025) taken as the lead case. The primary legal issue was the alleged violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), due to the failure of authorities to provide the grounds of arrest in writing.
Background of the Lead Case
The lead appeal arose from a fatal hit-and-run incident on July 7, 2024. According to the facts noted in the judgment, a BMW car, allegedly driven by the appellant Mihir Rajesh Shah, struck a scooter, throwing the complainant and his wife onto the bonnet. The victim (the complainant’s wife) became ensnared, but the driver allegedly “persisted in his reckless flight, dragging the victim, thereafter absconding without rendering assistance or reporting the incident.” The victim succumbed to her injuries.
An FIR (No. 378/2024) was registered, and the appellant was apprehended on July 9, 2024. Evidence collected, including CCTV footage and Fastag data, allegedly established the appellant as the driver.
During remand proceedings, the appellant contested the legality of his arrest, arguing that the grounds of arrest were not furnished in writing. The High Court of Bombay, in its judgment on November 25, 2024 (Criminal Writ Petition No. 3533 of 2024), acknowledged this “procedural lapse” but upheld the arrest, citing the appellant’s “conscious awareness of the gravity of the offence” and his evasion of arrest.
Questions of Law
The Supreme Court, while granting leave on April 22, 2025, formulated two key questions for consideration: (a) Whether it is necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused in writing in every case, including those under the IPC/BNS. (b) Whether an arrest would be vitiated if, due to exigencies, grounds are not furnished immediately.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Submissions: The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that arresting without written grounds was a “gross violation of the constitutional protection and mandate of Article 21 and Article 22(1).” Reliance was placed on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) to argue that communication of grounds must be “meaningful,” which necessitates it being in writing. It was further argued, citing Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024), that this requirement applies to all offences, not just special statutes like PMLA or UAPA, as Article 22 does not differentiate.
Respondent’s Submissions: The State of Maharashtra contended that Section 47 of BNSS does not specify the mode of communication. It argued that Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha were distinct as they pertained to special statutes. The State supported the High Court’s view that while informing grounds is mandatory, doing so in writing is not.
Amicus Curiae’s Submissions: The learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Shri Singh, submitted that grounds must be communicated in all cases. However, he opined that the Constitution and procedural law do not make it mandatory to provide them in writing in every case, suggesting Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) indicated it may not always be practical. He proposed that grounds must be provided “forthwith,” meaning within a reasonable time and, crucially, prior to the remand hearing.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court embarked on a detailed analysis of the constitutional safeguards, noting that the objective of Article 22(1) “is to enable the person to understand the basis of his arrest and engage legal counsel to challenge his arrest, remand or seek bail.”
On the ‘Mode’ of Communication: The Court found that mere oral communication is insufficient. It drew a parallel to Article 22(5) (related to preventive detention) and cited the Constitution Bench judgment in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, which held that grounds must be given in a language and script the detenu can understand.
The Court explicitly held that the “objective of the constitutional mandate would not be fulfilled by mere reading out the grounds to the arrested person.”
In paragraphs 45 and 46, the Court held:
“From the catena of decisions discussed above, the legal position which emerges is that the constitutional mandate provided in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is not a mere procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard… 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.”
On ‘Exigencies’ and Timeframe: The Court acknowledged that it may not always be “practically possible” to supply written grounds at the exact moment of arrest, such as in cases of offences committed in flagrante delicto (in the very act).
To balance the rights of the accused with the duties of law enforcement, the Court established a clear, two-tiered procedure:
- Standard Cases: In cases where police have documentary material or the accused appears after a notice (e.g., economic offences, PMLA), written grounds “must be furnished to the arrestee on his arrest.”
- Exceptional Cases (Exigencies): In cases like offences against the body or property committed in flagrante delicto, it is “sufficient for the police officer… to orally convey the same to the person at the time of arrest.”
However, the Court immediately qualified this exception with a new, mandatory deadline:
“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.” (Para 52)
The Court clarified that this two-hour minimum “would ensure that the counsel has adequate time to scrutinize the basis of arrest and gather relevant material to defend the arrestee proficiently.”
The Final Decision
The Supreme Court concluded its judgment with four clear holdings (Para 56): i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes, including the IPC/BNS. ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands. iii) In cases where the arresting officer is unable to provide written grounds on arrest, it must be done orally, and the written grounds must be communicated “at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings.” iv) Non-compliance with this procedure “would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.”
The Court directed that this procedure “shall govern arrests henceforth.”
Disposal of Appeals:
- Mihir Rajesh Shah (2195/2025): The appeal was disposed of, as the Court had issued notice only to settle the questions of law.
- Criminal Appeals 2189/2025 & 2190/2025: The ad-interim bail granted to the appellants was ordered to continue. The prosecution was given liberty to move for remand or custody, if required, but only “after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing.”
- SLP (Crl.) 8704/2025: The petitioner’s ad-interim bail was continued, and the matter was ordered to be listed before an appropriate bench.
