The grounds of arrest must be conveyed in writing, in a language the arrestee understands, and supplied no later than two hours before first remand; non-compliance vitiates the arrest and subsequent custody
(Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025, Supreme Court of India, per Augustine George Masih J., decided 6 November 2025)
Headnote
Constitution of India — Articles 21 and 22(1) — Right to be informed of grounds of arrest — Mandatory written communication — Applicability to all offences, including those under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Exceptions — Two-hour rule prior to remand — Arrest without written grounds violative of fundamental rights — Arrest and custody rendered illegal.
The Supreme Court held that every arrested person, irrespective of the nature of the offence or statute involved, must be furnished with written grounds of arrest in a language understood by him or her.
Non-communication in writing violates Articles 21 and 22(1) and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), rendering the arrest and subsequent remand illegal. Oral intimation is permissible only in exceptional, exigent circumstances—such as when a crime is witnessed in progress—provided that a written copy of the grounds is supplied within a reasonable time and not later than two hours before the arrestee’s production before the Magistrate for remand.
Facts
On 7 July 2024 a high-speed BMW, allegedly driven by Mihir Rajesh Shah, fatally struck a scooter in Mumbai. An FIR (No. 378/2024) was registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Shah was arrested on 9 July 2024. He challenged the legality of his arrest on the ground that the investigating officer failed to provide written reasons for arrest as required by Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS. The Bombay High Court admitted procedural lapse but upheld the arrest. On appeal, the Supreme Court framed two questions: (i) whether written grounds are necessary in all cases; and (ii) whether failure to furnish them vitiates the arrest.
Held
-
Universality of the Right.
Article 22(1) embodies an unqualified constitutional guarantee applicable to all arrests; the obligation to inform grounds of arrest is “mandatory and unexceptional.” The Court linked this to the broader protection of personal liberty under Article 21 (¶¶ 33–40). -
Written Communication in Language Understood.
Oral communication is inadequate. Grounds must be furnished in writing and in a language comprehensible to the arrestee, thereby enabling access to counsel and effective opposition to remand (¶¶ 41–45). -
Exceptional Situations and the Two-Hour Rule.
In rare exigencies—e.g. offences committed in flagrante delicto—oral intimation may temporarily suffice, but a written copy must follow within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours before the Magistrate’s remand hearing (¶ 52–53). Any delay must be recorded and justified in the remand papers. -
Consequences of Non-Compliance.
Failure to supply written grounds constitutes breach of fundamental rights; such arrest and custody are illegal (¶ 54). However, the Court left open the effect on investigative acts already completed. -
Statutory Reinforcement.
Sections 47 and 48 BNSS 2023 (corresponding to Sections 50 and 50A CrPC 1973) operationalise the constitutional duty by mandating immediate communication of grounds and notification of relatives. The Court directed strict adherence.
Ratio Decidendi
To fulfil the constitutional purpose of Article 22(1), the grounds of arrest must be conveyed in writing, in a language the arrestee understands, and supplied no later than two hours before first remand; non-compliance vitiates the arrest and subsequent custody.
Significance
The judgment extends the jurisprudence of Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Vihaan Kumar—previously confined to “special statutes” such as PMLA and UAPA—to all criminal arrests under the general law. It infuses Article 22(1) with substantive due-process content and imposes a uniform national standard of written accountability in arrest procedure.
Practically, every police station must now issue written, language-appropriate arrest memoranda and maintain acknowledgment records. The “two-hour rule” balances constitutional fidelity with policing pragmatism, ensuring that the right to counsel before remand is not illusory.
Doctrinally, Mihir Rajesh Shah advances India’s shift from mere legality to constitutional proportionality in deprivation of liberty, aligning domestic criminal process with global human-rights norms.
End-Notes
-
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 INSC 1288 (SC) (per Masih J.).
-
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 7 SCC 576 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244.
-
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254.
-
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2025) 5 SCC 799 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269.
-
Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 911.
-
Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India & Ors., (1981) 2 SCC 427.
-
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260.
-
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273 : AIR 2014 SC 2756.
-
Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3031.
-
Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 2 SCC 381 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3580.
-
Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 314.