The Supreme Court on Friday reaffirmed that informing an arrested individual of the grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a constitutional mandate under Article 22(1).

The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh, emphasized that failure to comply with this requirement constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21, rendering the arrest illegal.

The Court asserted that in cases where a breach of Article 22(1) is established, courts must immediately order the release of the accused. The bench clarified that even if statutory restrictions exist on granting bail, such restrictions do not override the court’s power to grant bail when constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22 are infringed.

The judgment also clarified that merely informing a person of their arrest does not fulfill the requirement of providing the grounds of arrest. Addressing constitutional and statutory provisions, the Court directed the immediate release of Vihaan Kumar, who was arrested by Haryana police on June 10, 2024, in a 2023 cheating and forgery case. The Court found his arrest in violation of Article 22(1).

Additionally, the Court took serious note of the fact that Kumar was handcuffed and tied to a hospital bed while in custody, calling such treatment "shocking" and a clear violation of Article 21. It directed the Haryana government to issue guidelines to prevent such actions in the future.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the appellant, argued that the grounds for Kumar’s arrest were not communicated to him, violating Section 50 of the CrPC and Article 22(1). He also contended that Kumar was not presented before a court within 24 hours of his arrest. The state government, however, relied on the case diary and remand papers to claim that the grounds of arrest were explained.

The Court dismissed this argument, holding that reliance on the case diary was irrelevant and that no contemporaneous documents had been presented to show compliance with Article 22(1). In a concurring opinion, Justice Singh underscored that the obligation to communicate the grounds of arrest extends not only to the arrested individual but also to their relatives, friends, or nominated persons. Failure to do so would render the arrest unlawful.

Referring to past judgments, including those in Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha, the Court reiterated that once an arrest is deemed unconstitutional under Article 22(1), any subsequent custody based on remand orders also becomes invalid. The Court further emphasized that filing a charge sheet or obtaining cognizance does not validate an arrest that is unconstitutional.

However, the bench clarified that non-compliance with Article 22(1) does not affect the legitimacy of the investigation, charge sheet, or trial. The Court also highlighted that when an arrested person challenges the legality of their arrest based on Article 22(1), the burden of proving compliance rests on the police.

The bench stressed that when an arrested individual is presented before a judicial magistrate for remand, the magistrate must ascertain whether Article 22(1) has been followed. Since non-compliance renders the arrest illegal, courts cannot approve remand in such cases. The Court reaffirmed that protecting fundamental rights is the duty of all judicial bodies.