This is a guest post by Hanshita Sharma who studies law at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow, and Kush Taparia who’s a student at the National Law University, Jodhpur

Here goes:

 “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power of arrest is one thing and the justification for the exercise of such power is quite another.”

– Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1349.

Introduction

Imagine being taken into custody without any explanation or clarity regarding the reasons for the arrest. For many, this is not merely a hypothetical scenario but a stark reality. The authority to arrest is a significant power vested in the State, but when exercised arbitrarily or without due process, it results in the deprivation of an individual’s fundamental rights.

The law must operate with precision, fairness, and unwavering adherence to constitutional safeguards when affecting an individual’s liberty. But what happens when those safeguards are ignored? The case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. [SLP Crl No. 13320 of 2024] brings this critical question to the forefront, addressing whether the failure to inform the accused of the grounds for arrest renders the detention unlawful.

On 7th February, the Supreme Court [“SC”] reaffirmed that Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution is not a mere procedural formality but an essential safeguard against arbitrary detention. The Court not only restored the Appellant’s liberty but also underscored that constitutional rights are fundamental protections that are non-negotiable and must always be upheld. 

However, the violation of Article 22 does not occur in isolation. This analysis further examines its broader implications, particularly its impact on Articles 19 and 21. The interconnectedness of these rights highlights how the violation of one fundamental right triggers a cascading effect, undermining the broader framework of individual freedoms.

What Went Wrong? Examining the Arrest and Legal Complications

The Petitioner, a businessman based in Gurugram, was arrested and charged under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to Sections 316, 318, 338, 336, 340, and 61 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita). The Appellant contended that he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, constituting a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and  Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”] (corresponding to Section 47 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita [“BNSS”]). However, the prosecution contended that his wife had been informed about the arrest with the details recorded in the arrest memo, remand report, and case diary. 

The Appellant also contended that he was not presented before a magistrate within the legally mandated 24-hour period, exceeding the permissible time frame under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 58 of the BNSS).

To further complicate matters, reports emerged alleging that the Appellant faced inhumane treatment during his hospitalization following the arrest. Allegedly, he was handcuffed and chained to his hospital bed, raising serious concerns regarding his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. In response, the SC issued a notice to the hospital administration seeking clarification. The hospital authorities later admitted that the Appellant had been restrained while undergoing treatment. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the police officers involved, which led to their suspension.

Despite these claims, the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected the Appellant’s claims regarding the lack of communication about the grounds for arrest, citing the available evidence sufficient. It also upheld the legality of the arrest, emphasizing that the Appellant was presented before a Magistrate within the 24-hour timeframe. 

Supreme Court’s Verdict And The Broader Constitutional Implications

Challenging the High Court’s decision, the Appellant’s appeal before the SC raised three key issues: first, the failure to ensure his timely production before a magistrate; second, the lack of communication regarding the grounds of his arrest; and lastly, the degrading treatment inflicted upon him while in custody.

The SC’s ruling reinforced the fundamental right to personal liberty by emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness. It clarified that any breach of the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) makes the arrest unlawful, thus invalidating any subsequent remand orders.

Additionally, magistrates must ensure compliance with Article 22(1) by verifying whether the arrested individual was informed of the grounds of their arrest. Failure to comply with this essential requirement obligates the magistrate to order the immediate release of the accused. The Court also asserted that even statutory restrictions on bail cannot override constitutional mandates; if an arrest is deemed unconstitutional, bail must be granted irrespective of limitations under special laws. 

The right to be informed of the grounds for arrest under Article 22(1) is not merely a procedural formality but a crucial safeguard of personal liberty, as protected under Article 21. Without being informed of the reasons for their detention, an individual is denied the opportunity to seek legal recourse, making their detention arbitrary and unjust. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,  the SC emphasized that any deprivation of liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. In the case of Vihaan Kumar, the failure to disclose the grounds for arrest constitutes a violation of this essential requirement, thereby undermining the right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed by Article 21.

Moreover, disregarding the procedural safeguards of Article 22(1) not only infringes on an individual’s liberty but also undermines the broader constitutional guarantees under Article 19. This includes the right to free speech, movement, and peaceful assembly. When the state detains individuals without providing clear justification, it not only violates their freedoms but also opens the door to potential abuse of power.

The Trajectory of Arrest Transparency in India

The SC has consistently emphasised that Article 22(1) is a constitutional imperative, not a procedural nicety. In Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra (1962), the Court ruled that merely stating the reasons for arrest is not enough if the detainee cannot understand them. If the information is conveyed in a language they do not comprehend, it amounts to non-compliance with Article 22(1). 

Similarly, in Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, the Court held that detention grounds must be provided in writing in a language the detenu understands. The mere verbal explanation is inadequate, as it prevents the detenu from making an effective representation, violating Article 22(5).

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Court set guidelines to prevent custodial violence. These include informing the accused of their rights and legal aid, maintaining official records, and ensuring access to legal counsel. 

Similarly, in V. Senthil Balaji v. State (2024), the Court suggested that law enforcement provide a written document stating the reasons for arrest duly signed by the arresting officer. This ensures that detainees fully understand why they are being held, eliminates ambiguity, and prevents disputes over whether the grounds for arrest were properly conveyed.

Furthermore, in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024), the Court drew an essential distinction between “grounds of arrest”and “reasons for arrest,” ruling that vague, generalised justifications do not meet the constitutional standard, requiring specific and transparent communication of arrest grounds.

Arrest Rights Around the World: Lessons from Global Legal Systems

Globally, legal systems emphasise the importance of clarity, immediacy, and accessibility when informing individuals of the reasons for their arrest. 

In the United Kingdom, Section 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 mandates that police officers inform an individual of their arrest and the legal grounds for it at the time of detention or as soon as possible. The European Convention on Human Rights under Article 5(2) goes a step further, requiring that individuals be promptly informed of the reasons for their arrest in a language they understand. 

Canada follows suit with Section 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which mandates that law enforcement communicate the reasons for an arrest clearly and immediately. In R. v. Evans (1991), the SC of Canada ruled that failing to provide this information promptly amounts to a constitutional violation.

Although Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution guarantees that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for arrest, its implementation is often hindered by unclear procedures and inconsistent enforcement. International legal frameworks emphasize the necessity of immediate, clear and comprehensible communication. India should align with these principles by ensuring that arrest reasons are conveyed in a language the detainee understands and by implementing stricter accountability for non-compliance.

Strengthening Arrest Safeguards Through Digital Reforms & Judicial Oversight

Ensuring transparency and accountability in the enforcement of Article 22(1) requires systemic reforms. Mandating providing written documentation signed by the arresting officer would prevent disputes and enhance transparency. Magistrates should actively verify compliance during remand hearings, and any failure to promptly communicate arrest grounds should result in the immediate release of the accused, irrespective of bail conditions. Placing the burden of proof on investigating officers would further uphold accountability and deter procedural lapses.

Technology can play a crucial role in strengthening legal safeguards. A centralized digital arrest database linked to the National Crime Records Bureau and police control rooms should be created. Police officers must digitally log every arrest in real-time, entering key details such as the grounds of arrest, time, place and officer’s details. Additionally, AI-driven legal aid tools and multilingual mobile applications can help detainees understand their rights instantly, ensuring greater accessibility to justice.

Conclusion

The SC’s ruling in Vihaan Kumar is a watershed moment for due process. The ruling strengthens legal safeguards for due process and personal liberty by firmly establishing that violations of Article 22(1) render arrests unlawful. However, maintaining the effectiveness of these protections requires structural changes. The integration of digital arrest records and AI-assisted legal aid mechanisms will enhance transparency and strengthen accountability. If India’s justice system adopts these measures, it would not only uphold its constitutional mandate but also set a global benchmark for safeguarding individual rights and procedural fairness.