Arrested? Demand This Document – Supreme Court Strengthens Right to Written Grounds of Arrest (Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025)
Arrested? Demand This Document
The Supreme Court, in its November 2025 ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra, significantly strengthened the constitutional rights of an arrested person. It held that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, is not a mere formality but a mandatory, fundamental right that applies to all offences under all statutes (including the Indian Penal Code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).
MANDATORY NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR
A VALID ARREST
The judgment mandates the
following strict procedural requirements:
1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION IS A MUST
- The grounds of arrest must be communicated in
writing to the person being arrested.
- Mere oral communication or reading out of the
grounds is insufficient, as it does not fulfil the constitutional
objective of enabling the person to consult a lawyer and defend themselves
effectively.
2. LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT
- The written grounds must be furnished in a
language the arrestee understands.
- Failure to do so renders the constitutional
safeguard illusory.
3. STRICT TIME-BOUND FURNISHING (THE “TWO-HOUR RULE”)
- Standard Rule: In cases where the police
already possess documentary material for the arrest, the written grounds
must be furnished to the arrestee at the time of arrest.
- Exceptional Circumstances (e.g., Flagrante
Delicto): In rare cases where immediate written supply is impractical
(such as an offence committed in the police officer’s presence), the
grounds may be conveyed orally at the time of arrest.
- However, even in such cases, the written copy must
be supplied within a reasonable time and in no event later than two
hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the Magistrate
for remand proceedings.
4. CONSEQUENCE OF NON-COMPLIANCE
- The Court unequivocally held that failure to comply
with these mandatory requirements will render the arrest and subsequent
remand illegal, and the person shall be entitled to be set at
liberty (released).
5. DUTY OF THE MAGISTRATE
- The Magistrate, before authorising any remand or
further detention, is now mandatorily obligated to inquire whether the
written grounds of arrest have been furnished to the accused and to verify
compliance with the two-hour rule.
This ruling significantly raises
the standard of compliance for law enforcement agencies, transforming the
procedural safeguard into a non-derogable constitutional right for every
arrested person.
The Mihir Rajesh Shah
judgment is the culmination of a series of landmark rulings where the Supreme
Court progressively tightened procedural safeguards for arrest, transitioning
from general guidelines to an absolute constitutional mandate for
written communication.
EVOLUTION OF THE WRITTEN GROUNDS OF ARREST MANDATE
The journey began with the right to know the grounds, which has always been a fundamental right under Article 22(1), but the mode of communication was often a point of contention until the Court mandated a written format.
PANKAJ BANSAL VS. UNION OF INDIA (2023)
The Supreme Court mandated the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused
under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
It asserts that merely reading out the grounds of arrest is insufficient and
renders the constitutional protection under Article 22(1) and Section
19(1) of PMLA meaningless.
The necessity for providing
written grounds is directly linked to the stringent bail conditions under Section
45 of PMLA. Since the accused must satisfy the Court that there are
reasonable grounds to believe they are “not guilty,” they must first be fully
and precisely aware of the specific facts (grounds of arrest) upon which the ED
officer formed their reason to believe that the accused is guilty.
PRABIR PURKAYASTHA VS. STATE(NCT OF DELHI) (2024)
Failure by the authorities to
provide the accused with a written copy of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental
violation of the right to liberty, which renders the arrest and subsequent
remand illegal and void, regardless of the severity of the alleged
offense.
This requirement ensures the accused has the necessary information to
effectively mount a legal defense and challenge detention.
VIHAAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA (2025)
Reaffirmed the written
requirement for general offences and addressed police procedural lapses
(like handcuffing).
It reiterated that non-compliance with Article 22(1) and 22(2)
makes an arrest illegal.
Applied the spirit of the written mandate to ordinary criminal cases,
bridging the gap between special and general laws, though the final word on
universality was yet to come.
KEY PRINCIPLES ON RE-ARREST
1. CURING THE DEFECT
The crucial point is that the
initial arrest was vitiated due to procedural lapses (like failure to provide
written grounds of arrest, as mandated by the Constitution and procedural law),
not due to a lack of incriminating material or a decision on the merits of the
case.
Once the investigating agency rectifies the procedural defect in the subsequent
arrest (e.g., by properly furnishing the written grounds of arrest), the re-arrest
can be sustained.
2. NO BLANKET IMMUNITY
Courts have held that a
procedural lapse by an investigating officer in the first arrest should not
grant blanket immunity to an accused, especially in serious criminal
cases.
Allowing an accused to escape the process of law solely on account of a curable
technical or procedural irregularity would be detrimental to the
administration of criminal justice.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY COMPLIANCE
The validity of the second arrest
hinges on its compliance with all legal and constitutional requirements,
particularly:
- Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty):
The arrest must be according to procedure established by law.
- Article 22(1) (Right to be informed of grounds
of arrest): The accused must be informed of the grounds of arrest, and
recent Supreme Court judgments emphasize that these grounds must be
communicated in writing in a language the arrestee understands.
4. NO EXPRESS BAR
There is generally no express
provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) that prohibits the re-arrest of an
individual in the same case after an earlier arrest has been declared illegal
due to curable procedural non-compliance.
In essence, the law aims to
strike a balance: procedural safeguards must be respected to protect personal
liberty, but they cannot be used as a shield to frustrate a lawful
investigation into a serious crime once the initial lapse is rectified.
At the same time, the collective
judgments cement the principle that the right to be informed of the grounds
of arrest, in writing, is a fundamental, non-derogable, and absolute
constitutional safeguard.
This right cannot be overridden by the severity of the offense or the nature of the law, establishing a uniform standard of due process necessary to enable an accused person to effectively challenge their detention and exercise their right to legal aid.
About the Author
Adv. Mamta Singh Shukla is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India and Founder of Vijay Foundations — an initiative dedicated to social justice, education, and empowerment. Through her writings, she advocates for human dignity, equality, and systemic change.
🌿 Thank You for Reading!
Your support inspires us to keep sharing meaningful stories on law, society, and empowerment.
Follow Vijay Foundations for more legal insights, awareness campaigns, and updates.
Comments
Post a Comment