In a landmark Supreme Court verdict, Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana (2025 INSC 162), the Court thoroughly examined the issue of the “fundamental rights of the accused to be informed of the grounds of arrest.” The Court emphasized that failing to inform the accused of the grounds of their arrest constitutes a violation of Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Recently , on 7th February,2025 in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana (2025 INSC 162) the apex court elaborately discussed on the issue , of “fundamental rights of the accused to be informed of the grounds of arrest”. The court emphasized that the failure to inform the grounds of arrest amounts to violation of Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution. This , brings us to a point where we must understand the balance drawn between the arbitrary power of arrest and the fundamental right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and the be released on bail as soon as possible.
“Communicate” is a strong word. It means that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the “grounds” should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands. The whole purpose of communicating the “ground” to the detenu is to enable him to make a purposeful and effective representation”
– Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 427
Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution , embodies a vital rule , which is that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrestee, however it is not necessary that the grounds of arrest must be in writing only , it can be in any manner , the compliance can be made by communicating sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest to the person arrested.
The grounds should be effectively and fully communicated to the arrestee in the manner in which he will fully understand the same. Therefore, it follows that the grounds of arrest must be informed in a language which the arrestee understands.
Article 22(1) grants every arrested person the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of their choice. This right is crucial to ensure that an individual receives fair legal representation. However, for this right to be meaningful, the person must be informed of the reasons for their arrest as soon as possible. If the authorities fail to communicate these grounds promptly, the arrested person may be unable to effectively seek legal counsel and prepare their defense.
This provision also acts as a safeguard against arbitrary arrests, ensuring that there are legitimate reasons for detaining someone, especially in cases where no prior warrant has been issued. Without this requirement, law enforcement could misuse their powers, leading to unjustified detentions.
Furthermore, when a person is arrested, their fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 is immediately restricted. Since the right to liberty is one of the most essential freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, any limitation on it must be justified. This makes it even more important for the arrested individual to fully understand the basis of their detention. Knowing the grounds of arrest not only upholds the principles of natural justice but also enables the person to challenge the detention if it is unlawful.
Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’), corresponding to Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’), embodies the same rule.
Section 50(1) mandates that any police officer or individual arresting a person without a warrant must immediately inform them of the full details of the offense or the grounds for their arrest. Similarly, Section 50(2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused
of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.
Thus, both Article 22(1) and Section 50 of the CrPC/ Section 47 of BNSS uphold the fundamental right of an arrested person to be promptly informed of the reasons for their arrest, ensuring transparency and protecting against arbitrary detention.
ALSO READ : Digital Arrest Scam in India: Legal Protections and Remedies
A LANDMARK VERDICT OF THE SUPREME COURT
The violation of Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, which mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest and his right to consult and be defended carries serious legal consequences .
The recent Supreme Court ruling in Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana (2025 INSC 162) reaffirmed this principle . In this case, the Court held that failure to comply with provision vitiates the procedure of arrest. The judgment stressed that informing an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest is not merely a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22, which falls under Part III of the Constitution, guarantees fundamental rights, making it essential that every individual taken into custody is promptly informed of the reasons for their arrest. Failure to do so would constitute a direct violation of the fundamental right protected under Article 22(1).
The judgement held:
“The requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest is not a mere procedural formality but a fundamental constitutional mandate.”
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case centers on the arrest of the appellant, Vihaan Kumar, in connection with FIR No. 121 of 2023, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including criminal breach of trust (Section 409), cheating (Section 420), forgery (Sections 467, 468, 471), and criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B). The FIR was based on a complaint filed by the second respondent. Vihaan Kumar was arrested on June 10, 2024, around 10:30 AM from his office at HUDA City Centre, Gurugram, Haryana, and taken to DLF Police Station, Sector 29, Gurugram.
He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on June 11, 2024, at 3:30 PM. The appellant claimed that he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest at the time of detention, violating his fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC, 1973.
In its defense, the State of Haryana argued that the appellant’s wife had been informed of his arrest and that the details were documented in the arrest memo, remand report, and case diary. The police also pointed to a case diary entry stating that the appellant was informed of the grounds for arrest at 6:10 PM on the same day.
The case also exposed serious human rights violations, as it was revealed that after his arrest, Vihaan Kumar was hospitalized at PGIMS, Rohtak, where he was handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed. The Supreme Court took serious note of this inhumane treatment and issued a notice to the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS, Rohtak.
The hospital authorities later admitted that the appellant had been restrained while undergoing treatment. As a result, a departmental inquiry was launched against the responsible police officers, leading to their suspension.
VERDICT OF THE HIGH COURT
The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed Vihaan Kumar’s plea challenging the legality of his arrest, which he argued was unconstitutional for not being informed of the grounds for arrest, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC.
The State of Haryana countered that the appellant’s wife had been informed of the arrest, and the remand report showed that the appellant was informed of the grounds, as per a police case diary entry. The court found the arrest memo contained sufficient details and equated the notification to the appellant’s wife with compliance under Article 22(1).
The High Court dismissed the appellant’s claims of non-communication of arrest grounds, noting the police case diary and remand report addressed the issue. The court also upheld the legality of the arrest, as the appellant was presented before a Magistrate within 24 hours, as required by Article 22(2). On the claim of being chained to a hospital bed, the court stated that it was a separate issue for departmental inquiry, as the officers involved had been suspended.
VERDICT OF SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the arrest of Vihaan Kumar was illegal and unconstitutional, as it violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court found that the State of Haryana failed to prove that the appellant was directly informed of the grounds for his arrest, a mandatory requirement. It rejected the argument that informing the appellant’s wife sufficed and criticized the High Court for dismissing the appellant’s plea.
The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the State to demonstrate compliance with constitutional safeguards, and since the State failed to do so, the arrest was invalid. The Court also condemned the inhumane treatment of the appellant, who was handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed, as a violation of human dignity under Article 21.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, ordered the immediate release of the appellant, and directed the State of Haryana to issue guidelines to prevent such violations in the future, reaffirming the importance of personal liberty and due process.
KEY ISSUES DISCUSSED
1.Was the appellant informed of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1)?
No. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, violating Article 22(1). The State’s claim, based on a vague police diary entry, was rejected as it was not contemporaneous and lacked proper documentation.
The Court emphasized that the arrested person must be directly informed, not just a third party like the appellant’s wife. The Court further noted that the arrest memo and remand report did not include the grounds for the arrest, reinforcing the violation of constitutional rights.
2.Does mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report or arrest memo fulfill Article 22(1)?
No. The Court ruled that mentioning the grounds in the remand report or arrest memo does not meet the requirement of directly informing the arrested person.
Article 22(1) mandates that the accused must be personally informed of the grounds for arrest to enable them to seek legal counsel and challenge it. The Court highlighted that official documents like the remand report are not substitutes for this direct communication.
3.Can a police diary entry be used as proof that the appellant was informed of the grounds of arrest?
No. The Court rejected reliance on the police diary entry, noting that it was not contemporaneous, was not presented earlier in the proceedings, and was a vague afterthought.
The Court stressed that a police diary entry cannot substitute for the actual communication of arrest grounds, which must be recorded explicitly and prior to informing the accused. When an arrested person claims non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden of proof lies with the State to provide concrete evidence.
THE PRECEDENTS
1. In V. Senthil Balaji case , it was held that if the grounds of arrest are not communicated properly, the arrested person should be released immediately. This situation can easily be avoided by simply giving the arrested person a written copy of the grounds for arrest, signed by the authorized officer, as required under Section 19(1) of the PMLA. This would ensure clarity and avoid relying on the officer’s word alone. (V. Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51)
Read Judgement Here:
2. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024), the Court discussed the difference between “grounds of arrest” and “reasons for arrest.” It explained that the grounds of arrest must provide specific details justifying the arrest and must be directly related to the accused, while the reasons for arrest are broader factors like preventing further offenses or ensuring a proper investigation.
The Court also distinguished between Section 50 of the CrPC, which requires immediate communication of the grounds (“forthwith”), and Section 19 of the PMLA, which allows for some delay (“as soon as may be”).
Read Judgement Here:
3.In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260, the Supreme Court ruled that an arrested individual has the right to inform a friend, relative, or family member of their choice about their arrest. The police officer is also required to inform the arrested person of their rights when being taken to the police station.
Read Judgement here:
4. In the landmark case D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997 (1) SCC 416), the court established key guidelines to be followed in all arrest or detention cases to prevent custodial violence. These guidelines include:
- A designated room must be provided for communication between officers.
- The identity of the arresting officer must be clearly visible, and all relevant details recorded in a register.
- A memorandum with all arrest details must be prepared and witnessed by a close relative or friend of the detainee.
- The police must ensure the accused is informed of their rights.
- The police must inform the accused about legal aid organizations within 8-12 hours of the arrest.
- The arrested individual must be informed of their rights as an accused person.
- A prescribed diary entry must be made.
- If the arrestee is injured, a legal examination must be conducted.
- A medical examination should be conducted within 48 hours of the arrest.
- All arrest details must be submitted to the magistrate in writing.
- The arrestee must be allowed to meet with their attorney.
Read Judgement here:
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana reaffirms the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights, particularly the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution.
The judgment highlights the constitutional mandate that an arrested person must be promptly and directly informed of the reasons for their detention, enabling them to seek legal counsel and challenge the arrest if necessary. Failure to comply with this requirement results in a violation of personal liberty and due process.
This case highlights the significance of transparency in arrest procedures, reinforcing the principles laid down in previous landmark rulings such as V. Senthil Balaji and D.K. Basu.
These precedents emphasize that arrest procedures must not only comply with statutory provisions but also protect individuals from arbitrary detention and custodial abuse.
The Court’s decision also draws attention to the need for greater accountability in law enforcement practices, especially in ensuring that arrested individuals are treated with dignity and their rights are respected at every stage of the arrest and detention process.
It is imperative that law enforcement agencies across India adopt clear and consistent procedures to uphold the constitutional safeguards provided to every individual, thereby ensuring justice and fairness in the criminal justice system.
Case Title – Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 INSC 162
Read Judgement here:
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE