Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees fundamental safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention. Specifically, it mandates that any person arrested must be informed “as soon as may be” of the grounds for such arrest. This constitutional right, considered sacrosanct, ensures that arrested individuals understand the basis for their arrest, enabling them to effectively seek legal recourse.
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2025 INSC 162) reiterates the importance of this right and clarifies the circumstances under which non-compliance invalidates an arrest.
Key Provisions under Article 22(1)
Article 22(1) mandates two critical rights for an arrestee:
- The person must be informed, “as soon as may be,” of the grounds for the arrest.
- The right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.
These rights are fundamental to protecting personal liberty under Article 21 and ensuring the arrested person’s ability to contest detention or seek bail effectively.
Analysis of the Judgment in Vihaan Kumar Case
In the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the appellant challenged his arrest, alleging that he was never informed of the grounds of arrest, thus violating Article 22(1). The arrest was in connection with offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC (now Sections 316(5), 318, 338, 336(3) and Section 61(2) of BNS. The Supreme Court, analyzing the circumstances meticulously, affirmed several essential principles regarding Article 22(1).
Communication of Grounds: Mandatory and Meaningful
The Court emphasized that the communication of the grounds of arrest must not be a mere formality but a substantive exercise. The arrestee must receive clear and understandable information concerning the reason for the arrest, ensuring he is fully aware of the basic facts that constitute the grounds for detention. The communication must be immediate or “as soon as may be,” preferably in writing, though Article 22(1) does not explicitly require written communication.
Necessity of a Contemporaneous Record
Significantly, the Court addressed the importance of contemporaneous records. It stated that police must maintain a contemporaneous written record detailing the grounds communicated to the arrested person. Merely noting in a diary that the grounds were communicated without specifying these grounds does not meet constitutional requirements. Such records must document the grounds of arrest to serve as evidence in case of any challenge regarding compliance.
Burden of Proof on Police Authorities
The judgment placed the burden of proof upon the police or investigating agency to demonstrate compliance with Article 22(1). Once the arrested person alleges non-compliance, it becomes incumbent upon the arresting authority to prove that the grounds of arrest were effectively communicated. The appellant’s mere assertion of non-communication places the evidentiary burden squarely on the police or the state to demonstrate adherence to constitutional mandates.
Communication Must be to the Arrestee Directly
The Court categorically held that informing relatives or third parties about the grounds of arrest, though required by Section 50A CrPC (now Section 48 BNSS), does not fulfill the requirement of Article 22(1). Communication of the arrest itself and communication of grounds of arrest are distinct legal obligations. Informing an arrestee’s relatives about the arrest does not mitigate or replace the requirement to inform the arrested individual personally about the grounds of arrest.
Violation of Article 22(1) Invalidates Arrest
Critically, the Court clarified that non-compliance with Article 22(1) renders the arrest invalid. Such a violation not only breaches Article 22 but also affects the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. If a court determines that the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated, the detention immediately becomes unlawful. Consequently, subsequent judicial remands, even if followed by a charge sheet, cannot retrospectively validate an arrest initially unconstitutional. Thus, any continued custody predicated upon an unconstitutional arrest is equally tainted and must be terminated forthwith.
No Rectification by Subsequent Procedural Compliance
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that subsequent remands, the filing of a charge sheet, or judicial cognizance could remedy an initial violation of Article 22(1). Once an arrest is declared unconstitutional, the entire custodial process originating from that arrest is compromised. Subsequent procedural compliance cannot rectify the original constitutional violation.
Guidelines to Prevent Violations
Acknowledging systemic lapses, particularly evident in the case of Vihaan Kumar, where the appellant was shockingly handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed, the Supreme Court directed the State of Haryana to issue guidelines to prevent such violations in future. Authorities must adhere strictly to the constitutional safeguards, ensuring not only legal compliance but also respect for human dignity.
Implications of the Judgment
The Vihaan Kumar judgment significantly strengthens procedural safeguards during arrests. It compels police forces across the nation to meticulously document arrest procedures, emphasizing transparency and accountability. Judicial magistrates are also mandated to proactively confirm compliance with Article 22(1) during remand hearings, ensuring an additional check on arbitrary arrests.
Moreover, the decision underscores the judicial commitment to personal liberty, highlighting that any constitutional breach during an arrest demands immediate corrective action, including release. This judgment serves as an authoritative precedent, reinforcing fundamental rights and ensuring that procedural missteps by law enforcement do not compromise individual liberty.
Recommendations for Compliance
Given the Court’s stringent stance, the following steps are recommended for law enforcement agencies:
- Grounds of arrest should be communicated clearly and comprehensively in writing wherever possible.
- Police diaries or contemporaneous records must explicitly record details of grounds communicated.
- Judicial magistrates should verify and record compliance with Article 22(1) explicitly during remand proceedings.
- Police training should emphasize constitutional rights during arrests to prevent inadvertent or deliberate violations.
Conclusion
The judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. marks a landmark reaffirmation of constitutional protection under Article 22(1). It underscores that constitutional rights are not merely procedural checkboxes but essential safeguards against arbitrary detention. Through meticulous articulation, the Supreme Court has reinforced that any compromise on communicating grounds of arrest fundamentally undermines the constitutional promise of liberty and justice.
This judgment is pivotal, compelling law enforcement and judicial systems alike to uphold and safeguard the rights of arrested persons, ensuring due process and constitutional fidelity.
