World
India
The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling on Friday, reaffirmed the inviolability of an individual’s fundamental right to be informed of the grounds for arrest.
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and N. Kotiswar Singh, held that any violation of this principle not only nullifies the arrest but also entitles the accused to immediate bail, irrespective of statutory bail restrictions.
The court unequivocally stated that the absence of such disclosure renders the arrest legally untenable. “Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second,” the judgment emphasized.
Expounding on constitutional safeguards, the bench underscored that Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 22 (protection against arbitrary detention) of the Constitution, in conjunction with Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and its restructured equivalent, Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), categorically prohibit arrest without due notification of charges.
Citing the 1962 constitutional bench ruling in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated that the right to be informed of the grounds for arrest is fundamental. “Failure to communicate these grounds promptly constitutes a direct infringement of the protections enshrined under Article 22(1),” observed Justice Oka, the principal author of the judgment.
The court issued the following directives to ensure adherence to constitutional and procedural safeguards:
-The obligation to inform an arrested individual of the grounds for arrest is an absolute constitutional mandate under Article 22(1).
-Such communication must be made in a language comprehensible to the accused.
– In instances where an accused contests non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden of proof lies squarely on the investigating agency.
– Violations of Articles 21 and 22(1) constitute a breach of fundamental rights, rendering any remand order legally void, though the investigation, chargesheet, and subsequent trial remain unaffected.
– Judicial magistrates must proactively ascertain compliance with Article 22(1) during remand proceedings.
-Upon establishing a violation of Article 22(1), courts are obligated to order the accused’s immediate release, notwithstanding statutory bail constraints.
Applying these principles, the bench declared unconstitutional the arrest of Vihaan Kumar, who had been charged with financial fraud. The Haryana government was directed to release him immediately, as he had not been informed of the reasons for his detention.
Additionally, the court expressed grave concern over Kumar’s inhumane treatment, specifically his being handcuffed and shackled to a hospital bed, a practice deemed a violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21. The court mandated that the Haryana government issue clear directives to law enforcement, ensuring absolute compliance with Article 22 and explicitly prohibiting the handcuffing of hospitalized detainees.
While setting aside the arrest, the bench clarified that its ruling does not bear upon the substantive merits of the case or the validity of the chargesheet, reaffirming the procedural sanctity of criminal adjudication while safeguarding constitutional liberties.
Read More: 2001 Murder Case: SC Notice To Chhota Rajan On CBI Plea Challenging Suspension Of Life Sentence
