Context

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that informing an arrested person about the grounds of their arrest is not just a procedural formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. The Court held that failure to provide this information at the earliest opportunity renders the detention illegal, violating the right to liberty under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution.

Case and Ruling

The ruling was delivered in a case involving a man arrested by Haryana Police, where the Supreme Court found the arrest unconstitutional due to non-compliance with Article 22(1). As a result, the Court ordered his immediate release, reinforcing the principle that law enforcement must strictly adhere to constitutional safeguards.

Requirement for Specific Grounds of Arrest

The Court emphasized that the grounds of arrest must be:

• • Communicated effectively in a language the arrestee understands.
  • Detailed enough for the individual to know the exact reason for detention.

While the Court did not mandate that the grounds of arrest be provided in writing, it referred to the Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India case, where a written format was suggested as the ideal method. The Court noted that following this written approach would help eliminate the risk of non-compliance.

Legal Implications of Non-Compliance

The judgment clarified that failure to comply with Article 22(1) makes an arrest unconstitutional, meaning:

• • The arrestee cannot remain in custody, even for a second.
  • Filing a charge sheet or obtaining a magistrate’s order cannot validate an unconstitutional arrest.

Furthermore, when an arrested person is presented before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the magistrate’s duty to confirm that Article 22(1) was followed. If compliance is not established, the individual must be immediately released.

Burden of Proof on Law Enforcement

The Supreme Court also ruled that in cases where an arrestee claims non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden of proof falls on the Investigating Officer or Agency. Law enforcement must provide concrete evidence that the individual was informed of the grounds for arrest.

Conclusion

This ruling stands as a strong reaffirmation of the fundamental right to liberty and the procedural safeguards enshrined in Article 22. It underscores that constitutional protections are not optional but a binding duty for law enforcement agencies. By ensuring strict adherence to these safeguards, the Supreme Court has strengthened India’s criminal justice system, preventing arbitrary arrests and reinforcing citizens’ rights.