"Grounds Of Arrest Must Be Given In Writing": Supreme Court Fortifies Article 22(1) While Balancing Operational Needs In Criminal Investigations

I. Introduction

In Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered a significant, clarificatory judgment on the constitutional and statutory requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest. The Apex Court synthesized recent jurisprudence to hold that the right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 ("Constitution") to be informed of the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all cases and must ordinarily be communicated in writing in a language the arrestee understands. At the same time, the Apex Court recognized exigent circumstances in which immediate written communication is impracticable, crafting a workable temporal standard that protects liberty while enabling effective policing. The decision provides much-needed uniformity across offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ("BNS") and other statutes, and operationalizes the transition from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS").

II. Jurisprudential Context

In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576, the Apex Court had insisted on written grounds of arrest to give substantive effect to Article 22(1) and prevent factual disputes about oral communication. Further, the Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254 reiterated that written grounds must be furnished "as a matter of course and without exception," emphasizing that the right is not statute-specific and strikes at the core of Articles 20–22 of the Constitution. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) 5 SCC 799, the Apex Court clarified that while written communication is ideal, practicality might sometimes preclude it at the precise moment of arrest. Nonetheless, failure to meaningfully communicate grounds vitiates arrest and subsequent remand.

III. The Case:

The Mihir Rajesh Shah case arose out of a fatal hit-and-run incident in Mumbai on 7 July 2024, in which the appellant allegedly collided with a scooter, dragged the victim, and fled. The appellant challenged the legality of his arrest on the ground that he was not furnished written grounds of arrest, asserting violations of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS (the successor to Section 50 CrPC). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court acknowledged a procedural lapse but upheld the arrest, relying on the gravity of the offence and the appellant's conduct. The Mihir Rajesh Shah case was treated as the lead matter to settle the legal issue, and while dismissing the SLP, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified and expounded the law on communication of grounds of arrest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist and framed the following questions of law.

IV. Questions of Law:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court crystallized two questions:

• Whether furnishing grounds of arrest to an accused, in all cases including those under the BNS/Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), is necessary either before arrest or forthwith after arrest?
• Whether failure to furnish written grounds of arrest before or immediately after arrest vitiates the arrest in every case, including exceptional situations where immediate written supply is not feasible?

V. The Gist

After due deliberation, analysis of law and constitutional provisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

1. The constitutional mandate of Article 22(1), to communicate grounds of arrest is universal and applies to all offences under all statutes, including the BNS/IPC.
2. As a rule, the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing in a language the arrestee understands, and written communication is the modality that gives meaningful effect to the right.
3. In exceptional, exigent circumstances, such as arrests made in flagrante delicto for serious offences where immediate written communication is impractical, oral communication at the time of arrest may temporarily suffice, provided a written copy is furnished within a reasonable time and in any event no later than two hours prior to the arrestee's production before the magistrate for remand.
4. Non-compliance with the above renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal and entitles the person to release, with remand permissible thereafter only upon compliance and judicial scrutiny.

VI. Essence and Operative Framework

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) i.e., to communicate the grounds of arrest is universal and applies to all offences under every statute, including the BNS/IPC. As a rule, these grounds must be supplied in writing and in a language understood by the arrestee.

Only in narrowly defined exigent situations, oral communication at the time of arrest may temporarily suffice. This, however, also has a proviso that a written copy is furnished subsequently and, in any event, no later than two hours prior to the arrestee's production before the magistrate. Failure to comply will result in arrest and remand being rendered illegal.

Drawing from preventive detention jurisprudence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that "communication" means imparting sufficient knowledge in a language the person understands. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also integrated the legislative safeguards under the BNSS: Section 47 (successor to CrPC Section 50) on informing grounds of arrest and Section 48 (successor to Section 50A CrPC) on notifying a relative/friend and the magistrate's duty to ensure compliance. Complementary provisions viz. Section 38 BNSS recognizing access to counsel during interrogation, and Section 187 BNSS governing remand were read to ensure meaningful, timely access to legal advice prior to remand.

VII. Reasoning: From Principle to Practice

At the heart of this judgment is the recognition that arrest is a profound intrusion on liberty and dignity and entails social stigma and psychological consequences. Article 22(1) operates as a procedural shield to ensure that an arrestee can immediately consult counsel, oppose remand, and seek bail. The Apex Court rejected formalism and insisted on a modality that is meaningful: written communication in a language the arrestee understands, supplied soon enough to allow effective representation at remand.

At the same time, the Apex Court avoided creating a procedural straight jacket that could hamper legitimate law enforcement. It identified exceptional cases where immediate written communication is operationally impractical, for e.g., violent offences committed in the presence of a police officer. For such cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed initial oral intimation but required a written copy within a reasonable time and mandatorily at least two hours before the remand hearing. This two-hour interval is novel, purpose-built to ensure counsel can assess the basis of arrest, confer with the arrestee, and prepare opposition to police custody. The Hon'ble Supreme Court required that remand papers contain the grounds of arrest and that any delay be explained to the magistrate, reinforcing judicial oversight and accountability.

VIII. Fundamental Rights and Balance

This ruling is anchored in a robust reaffirmation of fundamental rights. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasizes that Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution are not abstractions. They require concrete modalities to be effective. Written communication in a comprehensible language is not an embellishment; it is the only reliable means to secure meaningful access to counsel and to ensure that an arrestee's opposition to remand and requests for bail are informed and timely. By operationalizing this obligation across all statutes, the Hon'ble Supreme Court eliminates differential treatment between general and special laws, aligning with the principle that fundamental rights do not vary with the statute invoked.

Simultaneously, the Hon'ble Supreme Court respects the exigencies of policing. Recognizing that criminal investigations often unfold under urgent and unpredictable conditions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court avoids rigid rules that could blunt law enforcement's capacity to intervene in real time. The two-hour pre-remand threshold is a carefully calibrated standard. It ensures that the constitutional right has meaningful content at precisely the moment it matters most i.e., before judicial authorization of continued custody, while preserving operational flexibility at the point of arrest. This is constitutional balancing at its best: principled, practical, and proportionate.

IX. Practical Implications

For investigating agencies, the message is unequivocal: incorporate written grounds of arrest as standard operating procedure and contemporaneously document compliance. Prepare written grounds in a language intelligible to the arrestee, redacting any sensitive material if necessary, and ensure timely supply. Record oral communication only in exceptional circumstances, followed by timely written communication and a note of explanation in remand papers. Ensure compliance with BNSS Section 48 by promptly notifying a nominated relative or friend and maintaining station records.

For defense counsel and Courts, the framework provides clear thresholds for testing the legality of arrest and remand. Two practical pivots emerge: the timing of written grounds relative to first production and the adequacy of communication in a language the arrestee understands. Magistrates must actively verify compliance and not act as mere post offices. The decision also reinforces early access to legal aid and translated documents, including the National Legal Services Authority's guidelines, thereby improving the fairness and quality of remand adjudication.

X. Conclusion

The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision is an exemplary constitutional adjudication. It reaffirms, with clarity and conviction, that informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is a non-negotiable fundamental right, effectuated through written communication in a language the arrestee understands. At the same time, it acknowledges the realities of frontline policing by recognizing rare exigencies, pairing that recognition with a precise and rights-protective timeline before remand. The two-hour pre-remand standard is a thoughtful innovation that ensures Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution is not a paper promise but a living safeguard.

This is a good and balanced judgment. It strengthens personal liberty without disabling legitimate law enforcement, enhances procedural rigor and transparency, and equips magistrates to fulfil their constitutional role. In aligning constitutional principle with operational practicality, the Hon'ble Supreme Court once again demonstrates its stewardship in upholding justice and fundamental rights at the most critical interface between the individual and the State.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.