Representative image of person in jail.
Credit: iStock Photo
The Supreme Court’s ruling that law enforcement authorities should furnish the grounds of arrest when a person is arrested is an affirmation of the right to freedom and personal liberty of citizens. A bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai said this requirement would apply not only to offences under special laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act (UAPA), but to all offences registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The Court ruled that the grounds of arrest should be communicated to the arrested person in writing, in a language he or she understands, within a reasonable time, and at least two hours before the person is produced before a magistrate for remand proceedings.
This ruling, which safeguards the liberty of individuals from arbitrary arrest, came in a 2024 hit-and-run case in Mumbai. The accused driver challenged his arrest, citing that the reason for the arrest was not given to him in writing. The Bombay High Court acknowledged the procedural lapse, but upheld the arrest, citing the gravity of the offence. The Supreme Court granted him bail on appeal without going into the merits of the case.
But while examining the question of law, it considered the right to be informed of the reason for arrest. Though the right has existed as a procedure in the country’s penal laws, it has hardly been respected. In the arrest of NewsClick editor Prabir Purkayastha in 2024, the Court extended this procedural safeguard to a stringent anti-terror legislation. But now, it has raised it from a procedural requirement and statutory right to a constitutional right.
The Court held that the requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, in the light of and under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality but a mandatory constitutional safeguard. By invoking Article 22(1), the Court has placed the right in the category of fundamental rights. In a significant statement, it said failure to comply with the provision would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, and the person would be at liberty to be set free.
The Court also prescribed a timeline to be followed and said it was a “judicious balance between safeguarding the arrestee’s constitutional rights under Article 22(1) and preserving the operational continuity of criminal investigations”. With the ruling, the apex court has reasserted the significance of due process by applying the principle of constitutional accountability to law enforcement.