Supreme Court Clarifies Mandatory Written Communication of Arrest Grounds Under Article 22(1):

Supreme Court Clarifies Mandatory Written Communication of Arrest Grounds Under Article 22(1) These criminal appeals arose from a series of arrests connected to different offences, including the high-profile hit-and-run case involving appellant Mihir Rajesh Shah. In each matter, the appellants argued that the police failed to furnish them with written grounds of arrest, despite this being a constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) and a statutory requirement under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023. In the lead case, Shah was arrested for a July 2024 BMW collision in Mumbai that resulted in one death and serious injuries, with the police relying on CCTV footage and evidence of alcohol consumption. HC Ruled: Although the Bombay High Court acknowledged that written grounds of arrest had not been provided, it upheld the arrest on the basis that the appellant already knew the allegations. Several similarly placed appellants challenged this reasoning, asserting that the non-supply of written grounds vitiated their arrests. Issue Before SC: Whether failure to provide written grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS, thereby rendering the arrest and remand illegal. SC Ruled: The Supreme Court held that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) is a mandatory and non-negotiable constitutional protection, requiring police to supply written grounds in a language the arrested person understands. Oral communication is insufficient, and written grounds must be provided in all cases, including those arising under special statutes. Only in exceptional, urgent arrests may grounds be initially conveyed orally, but even then, written grounds must follow within a reasonable time and always at least two hours before remand. The Court ruled that non-compliance with this requirement renders both the arrest and the remand illegal, entitling the arrested person to immediate release. It also reiterated the duty under Section 48 BNSS to inform a nominated relative or friend. To ensure uniformity across the country, the Court directed that the clarified procedure apply prospectively. The appeals were disposed of after settling the law, with interim bail in connected matters allowed to continue. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below