Introduction
The Supreme Court recently delivered a significant judgment, in a batch of Appeals, addressing the constitutional and statutory mandate of informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest.¹ The lead case arose from a tragic hit-and-run incident in Mumbai involving a speeding BMW that resulted in the death of a woman and minor injuries to her husband. The primary legal question before the Court, however, was not related to the incident itself but to a fundamental right embedded in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) as all the Appellants contended that they were not informed of grounds of their arrest in writing. The Bombay High Court had acknowledged a lapse in procedure but nevertheless upheld the arrest. On appeal, the Supreme Court framed two substantial questions of law:

1. Whether in each and every case, even arising out of an offence under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) would it be necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused either before arrest or forthwith after arrest?
2. Whether, even in exceptional cases, where on account of certain exigencies it will not be possible to furnish the grounds of arrest either before arrest or immediately after arrest, the arrest would be vitiated on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS)?

Statutory Provisions
The genesis of informing the grounds of arrest to a person flows from the Constitutional safeguard provided in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which reads “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. The expression ‘personal liberty’ includes procedural safeguards from the abuse of power by the State agencies and scrutiny of the actions of the State. Article 22 of the Constitution of India further strengthens the protection of personal liberty of a person by providing that a person arrested must be informed of the grounds of his arrest at the earliest and should not be detained without informing him of such grounds. The Constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22 of the Constitution of India has been effectuated by the legislature by incorporating Section 50 of CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS) which puts into force the procedural mandate providing for the protection of the personal liberty of the person so arrested. Section 47 of BNSS casts a duty on the police officer or other person arresting any person without a warrant shall communicate him the grounds of arrest. Section 50A of the CrPC (now Section 48 of BNSS) was further added to extend the scope of such protection by casting a duty upon the person arresting to inform such grounds of arrest to his/her friend, relative or any other person nominated by the arrested person which can include his/her lawyer.

Jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court

1. Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors, (2024) 7 SCC 576
   The Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of furnishing grounds of arrest under Section 19(1) of PMLA has emphasized that Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that no arrested person shall be detained without being informed of the grounds of such arrest at the earliest opportunity. The manner in which such grounds are to be communicated must be efficacious and substantive which must fulfil the essential objective and mandate of the constitutional provisions. It was further held that there exists no plausible justification as to why a written copy of the grounds of arrest ought not be provided to the arrestee as a standard procedural requirement without any exception.
    
2. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254
   The Supreme Court while dealing with offences under UAPA held that any individual arrested for alleged commission of offences under the UAPA or any other offence for that matter, has both a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed in writing such grounds of arrest. The Court further held that a copy of such written grounds must be furnished to the arrested person at the earliest without any exception observing that the communication provided under Article 22 and Section 50 of CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS) is not a mere procedural formality but a vital safeguard with the ultimate objective to enable the arrested person to effectively consult legal aid and be prepared to raise objections in remand hearing and apply for his/her bail. The right to life and personal liberty, safeguarded under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, stands as the paramount fundamental right. Accordingly, infringement of these constitutional protections commands rigorous judicial scrutiny and strict enforcement. It was further held that any breach of the constitutional safeguards provided under Article 22 would vitiate the lawfulness of arrest and subsequent remand and entitle the arrested person to be set at liberty.
    
3. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another, (2025) 5 SCC 799
   The Supreme Court acknowledged that it might not be practical to provide grounds of arrest to an accused in each and every case in writing and thus clarified that there is no statutory requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing. However, the mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved. The requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so as to ensure that those in a position to act, i.e. secure legal representation, initiate the process for bail, are empowered to do so without any delay, thereby safeguarding the fundamental rights of the arrested person, failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal. If the arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance.

Held

Regarding the Arrestee:
The intent and purpose of the constitutional mandate is to prepare the arrested person to defend himself. The mode of communicating the grounds of arrest must be such that it effectively serves the intended purpose as envisioned under the Constitution of India which is to enable the arrested person to get legal counsel, oppose the remand and effectively defend himself by exercising his rights and safeguards as provided in law. The grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrestee in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of facts constituting grounds is imparted. The objective of the constitutional mandate would not be fulfilled by mere reading out the grounds to the arrested person. The grounds of arrest must be informed to the arrested person in each and every case without exception, including offences punishable under the IPC/BNS, and the mode of the communication of such grounds must be in writing in the language he/she understands.

Regarding the relative/friend/person:
An obligation is imposed on a person making arrest, as provided under Section 50A read in relation to Section 50 of the CrPC (now Section 48 and 47 of BNSS respectively), to inform the arrestee of his right to indicate his relative, friend or such other person for the purpose of giving information with regard to his arrest. The police officer/person making any arrest shall make an entry of the fact as to who has been informed of such an arrest in a book to be kept in the police station.

Regarding the time limit:
In cases where the police are already in possession of documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for the arrest, the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee on his arrest. However, in exceptional circumstances such as offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto (caught red handed), where informing the grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it is sufficient for the police officer or other person making the arrest to orally convey the same to the person at the time of arrest. 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 remand papers shall contain the grounds of arrest and in case there is delay in supply thereof, a note indicating a cause for it be included for the information of the magistrate. The Supreme Court held that this period would ensure that the counsel has adequate time to scrutinize the basis of arrest and gather relevant material to defend the arrestee. Any shorter interval may render such preparation illusory, thereby resulting in non-compliance of the constitutional and statutory mandate.

Conclusion

1. The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC (now BNS).
2. The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands.
3. In cases 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.
4. 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.

By - Lakshmi Raman