The Supreme Court on Friday signaled its intent to determine whether an arrest becomes invalid in all cases due to the failure to provide the accused with the grounds for arrest.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha addressed a plea challenging the arrest of Mihir Rajesh Shah in the BMW-hit-and-run case in Worli, where a 45-year-old was killed. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s decision to uphold Shah’s arrest, despite claims that he was not furnished with the grounds of arrest.

The Bombay High Court had acknowledged the submission but reasoned that Shah was aware of his arrest’s context. The Court pointed to his alleged actions of fleeing the crime scene and attempting to conceal evidence, such as the car’s number plate. Consequently, it held that Shah could not benefit from Supreme Court judgments requiring written grounds of arrest to validate an arrest.

The High Court referred to rulings like the Pankaj Bansal judgment, where the Supreme Court mandated that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must provide written grounds of arrest in money laundering cases. It also cited the Prabir Purkayastha judgment, which imposed a similar requirement for arrests under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

While declining to interfere with the High Court’s findings, Justices Gavai and Narasimha acknowledged the constitutional significance of the issue. The matter revolves around the interpretation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that arrested individuals be promptly informed of the grounds for arrest and granted the right to consult a lawyer of their choice.

"Though prima facie we do not find that an error is committed by the Division Bench of the High Court, we find it appropriate to entertain the matter so as to consider the legal position," the Court said.