Reinforcing the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that every person arrested under any law must be furnished with the written grounds of arrest in a language they understand. The apex court made it clear that this constitutional requirement applies to all offences, under all statutes, including those under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih in the case Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra, arising from the 2024 Mumbai BMW hit-and-run case, held that the mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution is not a mere formality but a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty.
“To achieve the intended objective of Article 22(1), the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrested person in each and every case without exception, and the mode of such communication must be in writing in a language the person understands,” Justice Masih wrote in the 52-page verdict.
The Supreme Court mentioned that Article 22(1) guarantees that a person under arrest must be informed “as soon as may be” of the reasons for their arrest. The court clarified that this provision is not a procedural nicety but an essential right, without which the concept of personal liberty under Article 21 becomes hollow.
The Bench observed that merely communicating the reasons in a language not understood by the accused does not meet the constitutional standard and renders the safeguard “illusory.”
Recognising that there may be rare circumstances where written communication may not be immediately possible, the court said that in “exceptional situations”, the grounds of arrest could first be conveyed orally but must be supplied in writing within a reasonable time, and in any case, not later than two hours before the arrestee’s production before a magistrate for remand proceedings.
The Bench held that failure to comply with this directive would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, allowing the person to be set free.
The case originated from the arrest of Mihir Rajesh Shah, accused in the Mumbai BMW hit-and-run case of July 2024, who had challenged his arrest on the ground that he was not informed in writing of the reasons for his detention. While the Bombay High Court had acknowledged procedural lapses, it upheld the arrest due to the gravity of the offence.
The Supreme Court, however, took a broader constitutional view, using the case to lay down an authoritative interpretation of Article 22(1), holding that personal liberty cannot be compromised based on the seriousness of the alleged offence.
Emphasising the dual importance of the directive, the top court observed that a written record of the grounds of arrest not only protects the rights of the arrestee but also safeguards law enforcement agencies.
Such written documentation would serve as evidence that due process was followed, especially if the legality of the arrest is later challenged in court.
The court has directed its registry to circulate copies of the judgment to all High Courts through their respective Registrars General and to Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to ensure uniform compliance across the country.
The Bench made it clear that no investigating agency, whether police, ED, CBI, or others, is exempt from this constitutional obligation.
Comments