The Supreme Court ruled that police must give every arrested person written grounds of arrest in a language they understand, under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday delivered a major ruling that strengthens the rights of arrested persons. The Court said that the police and investigating agencies must give written grounds of arrest to every arrested person as soon as possible, no matter what kind of case or law the arrest is made under.
This ruling came in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., which was connected to the 2024 Worli BMW crash case in Mumbai.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih made it clear that this rule applies to all offences, including those under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which has replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Bench said this rule comes from a person’s fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution — the right to be told the reasons for one’s arrest.
The Court stated:
“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).”
The judges explained that this safeguard is part of a person’s right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and not following it would make the arrest unconstitutional.
The judgment said:
“If a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as may be, 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 Bench added that every arrested person must be given the written grounds of arrest in a language that he or she understands.
The Court said:
“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 judges further noted that just reading out the reasons for arrest is not enough.
They said:
“The objective of the constitutional mandate would not be fulfilled by mere reading out the grounds to the arrested person, such an approach would be antithesis to the purpose of Article 22(1).”
The Court emphasised that written communication is also important for the investigating agencies, as it helps prove that the arrest procedure was properly followed if it is ever questioned later.
However, the Bench recognised that there may be exceptional circumstances where giving written grounds immediately is not possible — for example, when a crime is being committed in front of a police officer and immediate action is needed.
The judges said:
“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.”
Even in those cases, the written grounds must be given soon after — within a reasonable time and no later than two hours before the accused is taken before the magistrate for remand proceedings.
The Bench explained that this time limit balances both sides — protecting the accused person’s rights while letting police continue their investigations effectively.
It said:
“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.”
The Court said that this two-hour period would help the arrested person and their lawyer prepare properly for the remand hearing.
Importantly, the judges made it clear that if this rule is not followed, the arrest and remand will be considered illegal, and the person must be released.
The judgment stated:
“If the above said schedule for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling the release of the arrestee.”
However, the Court also added that the investigating agency can still seek custody again later, but only after giving written grounds and explaining why there was a delay. The magistrate must then decide on this within a week.
The Supreme Court summed up its decision in four clear directions for all arrests in India from now on:
(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.
The Supreme Court also ordered its registry to send copies of this judgment to all Registrar Generals of High Courts and Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories so that the directions are followed uniformly across India.
This historic ruling reinforces that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is not just a formality but a constitutional safeguard protecting every citizen’s liberty.
The appellants in this case were represented by Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhri, along with advocates Siddharth Sharma, Ishika Chauhan, Aishwarya, Smriti Churiwal, Akshada Pasi, Vishesh Vijay Kalra, Sonia Sharma, Jaiveer Kant, Rishi Sehgal, Nikhil Jain, Muskaan Khurana, Divya Jain, Karl P Rustomkhan, Vaibhav Jagtap, Shubham Saxena, and Ashish Pandey.
The respondents were represented by advocates Rukhmini Bobde, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Sourav Singh, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Shrirang B Varma, Amlaan Kumar, Jatin Dhamija, and Vinayak Aren.
This judgment is expected to have a wide impact across all criminal investigations in India, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected and that arrests are made strictly according to constitutional and procedural safeguards.
Case Title:
Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2195 OF 2025
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Delhi Lawyers
