In a significant judgment delivered on November 6, 2025, the Supreme Court held that failure to provide the written grounds of arrest to an accused in a language he or she understands renders both the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
The Court, speaking through Justice Augustine George Masih (for a Bench also comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai), extended the constitutional and procedural safeguard under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India—previously emphasized in the context of special statutes such as the UAPA and PMLA—to all offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) / Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Constitutional mandate reinforced
Reaffirming that Article 22(1) is not a mere procedural formality but a binding constitutional safeguard, the Court held that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be, in a language and form he can understand, and such communication must be in writing.
“…mere communication of the grounds in a language not understood by the person arrested does not fulfil the constitutional mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The failure to supply such grounds in a language understood by the arrestee renders the constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes the personal liberty of the person as guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.” (Para 44)
The Court explained that the purpose of Article 22(1) is to place the arrestee “in a position to comprehend the basis of the allegations levelled against him,” and to enable him to “seek legal counsel, challenge custody, and apply for bail.” This purpose, it said, “would not be fulfilled by merely reading out the grounds.”
Written grounds in language understood by the arrestee
Drawing from Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, the Court held that written grounds must be furnished in the language understood by the person, not merely read out or translated orally.
“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 and communicated to the arrested person effectively in a language which he/she understands. The mode of communication ought to be such that it must achieve the intended purpose of the constitutional safeguard.” (Para 45)
Reiterating this, the Bench added:
“There is no harm in providing the grounds of arrest in writing in the language the arrestee understands, this approach would not only fulfil the true intent of the constitutional mandate but will also be beneficial for the investigating agency to prove that the grounds of arrest were informed to the arrestee when a challenge is made to the arrest on the plea of non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest.” (Para 45)
Extension beyond special statutes
Rejecting the argument that earlier rulings in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) were confined to PMLA or UAPA offences, the Court held that Article 22(1) applies equally to all arrests—without exception.
“Article 22(1)… casts a mandatory unexceptional duty on the State to provide the arrested person with the grounds of such arrest with the objective to enable that person to be able to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice. This mandate of Article 22 (1) is notwithstanding any exception. This Court has made it explicit that the constitutional obligation under Article 22 is not statute-specific and it is grounded in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore making it applicable to all offences including those under the IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023).” (Para 39)
The Bench further clarified that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is fundamental, non-derogable, and absolute, and non-compliance vitiates the arrest itself:
“The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest, in the light of and under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard which has been included in part III of the Constitution under the head of Fundamental Rights. Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as maybe, it would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest illegal.” (Para 40)
Limited exception for exigent circumstances
While declaring the arrest in the present case illegal, the Court carved out a narrow operational exception: where arresting officers are confronted with offences occurring in their presence (for instance, a murder or assault in progress), oral communication of the grounds may be permitted at the time of arrest, provided that written grounds are supplied within a reasonable time and, in any event, at least two hours before the arrestee’s production before the magistrate for remand.
“However, in exceptional circumstances such as offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be 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.” (Para 52)
This two-hour threshold, the Court noted, ensures a functional balance between safeguarding personal liberty and allowing police to perform their duties without procedural paralysis.
“The two-hour threshold before production for remand thus strikes a judicious balance between safeguarding the arrestee’s constitutional rights under Article 22(1) and preserving the operational continuity of criminal investigations.” (Para 53)
Consequences of non-compliance
In unequivocal terms, the Bench held that failure to provide written grounds of arrest in a language understood by the arrestee renders both the arrest and the subsequent remand illegal, entitling the person to immediate release.
Summarising its conclusions, the Court laid down the following binding directions:
- The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest applies to all offences under all statutes, including IPC/BNS.
- The grounds must be communicated in writing and in the language understood by the arrestee.
- If it is not possible to supply written grounds immediately, they may be communicated orally, but must be furnished in writing within a reasonable time and at least two hours before production for remand.
- Non-compliance renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, and the person “shall be entitled to be set at liberty.”
Significance and Broader Impact
This ruling is one of the most significant expansions of procedural due process under Article 21 and 22 in recent years. It builds on Pankaj Bansal (2023), Prabir Purkayastha (2024), and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), which strengthened the constitutional guarantee of being informed of arrest grounds under special statutes.
By explicitly extending these safeguards to all offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and allied laws, the Court has now constitutionalized written notice of arrest grounds as a non-derogable fundamental right, comparable to the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
“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 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) 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.” (Para 45)
The Court also directed that copies of this judgment be circulated to all High Courts and State Governments for immediate implementation and compliance.
Conclusion
The Mihir Rajesh Shah ruling marks a transformative moment in India’s criminal procedure jurisprudence, ensuring that constitutional guarantees of personal liberty are not reduced to hollow ritual. It affirms that an arrest made without written grounds—especially when not communicated in a language understood by the arrestee—is no arrest in the eyes of the Constitution.
“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, which reads “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. The expression ‘personal liberty’ has been given a wide meaning through various judicial pronouncements. One of which is that personal liberty includes procedural safeguards from the abuse of power by the State agencies and scrutiny of the actions of the State.” (Para 17)
The complete judgment may be read here.
Related:
SC intervenes for personal liberty after HC adjourns a bail application 27 times!
Examining Jurisprudential Shifts: The Evolution of Bail Provisions Under PMLA – Part II”