SC mandates written arrest grounds in language understood by accused
text_fields
New Delhi: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that every arrested person must be provided with written grounds of arrest in a language they understand, regardless of the nature of the offence or statute involved.
The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, strengthens constitutional protections for personal liberty under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It arose from the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra, linked to the high-profile Mumbai BMW hit-and-run incident of July 2024.
Justice Masih, writing the 52-page verdict, clarified that informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is not a procedural formality but a fundamental safeguard. “To achieve the intended objective of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the grounds of arrest must be informed to the arrested person in each and every case without exception and the mode of the communication of such grounds must be in writing in the language he understands,” the court stated.
The ruling applies to all offences under all statutes, including those under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). It directs that if written communication is not possible at the time of arrest, the grounds may be conveyed orally, but must be supplied in writing within a reasonable time, and in any case, at least two hours before the arrestee is produced before a magistrate for remand.
Failure to comply with this requirement would render both the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, the court said, adding that the individual would then be at liberty to be released.
The Supreme Court also directed its registry to circulate the judgment to all registrars general of high courts and chief secretaries of states and Union territories.
The bench addressed two key issues: whether written grounds of arrest are mandatory in every case, including those under the IPC/BNS; and whether arrests made without such communication due to exigencies would be invalid.
Referring to earlier rulings, the court emphasised that merely informing the arrestee in a language they do not understand fails to meet the constitutional mandate. “The failure to supply such grounds in a language understood by the arrestee renders the constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes the personal liberty of the person as guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution,” it said.
The objective, the court added, is to enable the arrested person to comprehend the allegations against them, a right that can only be realised through communication in a language they understand.
The ruling follows appeals filed by Mihir Rajesh Shah, who challenged the legality of his arrest on grounds that he was not furnished written reasons. While the Bombay High Court acknowledged procedural lapses, it upheld the arrest citing the gravity of the offence.