The Supreme Court has held that an arrest and subsequent detention become unlawful if the written grounds of arrest are not provided to the accused in a language they understand. A Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih made this ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, where the Court considered whether not giving the written grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Facts:

On 7 July 2024, a white BMW, allegedly driven by Mihir Rajesh Shah, collided with a scooter, causing the complainant’s wife to suffer severe injuries, to which she later succumbed, as medically confirmed. The complainant himself sustained only minor injuries in the incident.

The evidence clearly established that the Appellant was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident. This was supported by CCTV footage showing him behind the wheel, proof that he had consumed alcohol shortly before the accident, his attempt to change his appearance, and the use of a Fastag registered in his name, among other incriminating details. He was arrested on 9 July 2024 but alleged that the police failed to provide him with written grounds of arrest, in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Apex Court’s Reasoning:

The Court first referred to Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which held that providing written grounds of arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is essential to prevent disputes and to ensure effective compliance with the mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

It then noted that in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), this principle was extended to offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Supreme Court clarified that any person arrested for offences under the UAPA—or for any other offence—has both a fundamental and statutory right to be informed in writing of the grounds of arrest.

Further, in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court observed that while it may not always be practical to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing in every case, doing so would eliminate any controversy regarding non-compliance.

Reaffirming these precedents, the Court emphasized that the constitutional mandate to inform an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory for all offences under every statute, including those under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

“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.” the court stated.

Additionally, the bench highlighted that,

“i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);

ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands;

iii) In case(s) 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.

iv)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.”

To ensure uniform compliance of this ruling, the court has directed the Registry to send one copy of this judgment to all the Registrar Generals of the High Courts and the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories.

Case Title: MIHIR RAJESH SHAH VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2195 OF 2025)