In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 162), the Supreme Court held that failing to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest violates the mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1), and set aside the arrest as illegal.

Background and Facts

Haryana Police arrested Vihaan Kumar from his Gurugram office on 10 June 2024, in a cheating and forgery case registered under multiple IPC sections. His family alleged that police never told him why he was being arrested. He was later found handcuffed to his hospital bed while undergoing treatment. He challenged his arrest and remand before the Supreme Court, after the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused him relief.

Question of Law

Whether failing to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and whether such a violation renders the arrest and any resulting remand order illegal.

Verdict and Key Observations

Mandatory, Not Formal: Communicating grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) is a mandatory constitutional requirement, not a procedural formality that courts can presume was complied with.
Effective Communication: Grounds must be conveyed so that the arrested person actually understands the basic facts behind the arrest, in a language they understand, not merely recorded on paper.
Arrest Memo Is Not Enough: A standard arrest memo, which records only the FIR number, time, and place of arrest, cannot substitute for genuine communication of the grounds of arrest.
Burden on Police: Once an arrested person alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden shifts to the investigating officer to prove that grounds were actually communicated.
Consequence: Non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest itself and renders any subsequent remand order illegal, entitling the person to release, though it does not by itself invalidate the investigation or trial.
Written Grounds Recommended: Article 22(1) does not explicitly require written communication, but the Court recommended furnishing grounds in writing to avoid future disputes over compliance.
Custodial Dignity: The Court separately held that handcuffing Kumar to his hospital bed violated his right to dignity under Article 21.

Significance

Strengthens Article 21 Protection: By tying Article 22(1) compliance directly to the legality of arrest and remand, the ruling makes the right to be informed of arrest grounds enforceable, not just symbolic.
Builds on Recent Precedent: The judgment extends the line of cases such as Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023) and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), which had already made written grounds of arrest mandatory under special statutes like the PMLA and UAPA. Vihaan Kumar applies the same rigour to ordinary IPC arrests.
Shifts the Burden of Proof: Placing the burden on police to prove compliance, rather than on the accused to prove non-compliance, is a significant procedural safeguard against arbitrary arrest.

Prelims Concepts