News

In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 162), the Supreme Court held that a police officer's failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to an arrested person violates the mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1). The Court set aside Vihaan Kumar's arrest as illegal and ordered his release, in a case where he was arrested from his Gurugram office in June 2024 without being told why.

About the Ruling

  • Mandatory, Not Formal: Communicating grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) is a mandatory constitutional requirement, not a procedural formality — an arrest memo recording only the FIR number and time is not enough.
  • Burden on Police: Once an arrested person alleges non-compliance, the burden shifts to the investigating officer to prove that grounds were actually communicated.
  • Consequence: Non-compliance vitiates the arrest and renders any remand order illegal, entitling the person to release.
  • Builds on Precedent: The ruling extends the written-grounds-of-arrest requirement from special statutes like the PMLA and UAPA (Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha) to ordinary IPC arrests.

About Article 22 Safeguards Against Arrest

  • What It Provides: Article 22(1) guarantees every arrested person the right to be told the grounds of arrest as soon as possible, and to consult a lawyer of their choice; Article 22(2) requires production before a magistrate within 24 hours.
  • Statutory Backing: These constitutional guarantees are reinforced by provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which require the arresting officer to state the grounds of arrest and inform a relative or friend.
  • Builds on Earlier Case Law: Courts have progressively tightened these safeguards, from D.K. Basu (1997) to Pankaj Bansal (2023) and Prabir Purkayastha (2024), before Vihaan Kumar extended the same rigour to ordinary IPC arrests.