Not informing grounds of arrest to accused violation of fundamental right: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest, it would amount to a violation of his fundamental rights, thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, rendering the arrest illegal.

The top court added that the provisions of Article 22(1) cannot be read in a restrictive manner; otherwise, its intended purpose of securing personal liberty would not be achieved, but rather be curtailed and put to disuse.

It said the grounds of arrest must be in writing and in a language understood by the accused.


A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and A S Chandurkar said that an accused has a fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of his arrest in writing, and a copy of such written grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest.

The top court also held that an investigating agency must approach a magistrate for re-arresting a person released earlier by a court in the same case for not being provided the grounds of arrest or being in detention for over 24 hours.

The top court said that Constitutional provisions under Article 22(1) and Article 22(2), which say that no person can be arrested without being provided grounds of arrest, and that every person who is arrested and detained shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours, respectively, cannot be tinkered with.

"Any attempt to encroach upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution has to be frowned upon by the courts and dealt with strictly. It would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Such a fundamental right being sacrosanct, cannot be breached under any situation," the top court said.

It added that any breach or non-compliance would entail immediate release of the arrested person because such arrest is unconstitutional.

"We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22. Subsequent filing of chargesheet and order of cognisance will not validate such an arrest," Justice Bhuyan said in his verdict on behalf of the bench.

The bench said the requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest in the light of and under Article 22(1) is not a mere formality but a mandatory, binding constitutional safeguard.

"Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as may be, it would amount to a violation of his fundamental rights, thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, rendering the arrest illegal," it said.

The top court added that what the court has contemplated is that when the schedule for complying with the grounds of arrest in writing is not adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal, entitling the arrestee to automatic release.

The bench said if there is a violation of Article 22(2), which mandates that every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest, the person can approach the high court for compensation.

It said that depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the high court may direct payment of compensation as part of the public law remedy in a case of violation of Article 22(2), with the liberty to the accused to avail his remedy under the private civil law.

The top court set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order of May 29, which dismissed the plea of Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol, a POCSO case accused, against quashing of his arrest and the order of the magistrate, saying the investigating agency cannot be prohibited or restrained from seeking warrants of arrest against the appellant or from re-arresting him or seeking his custody/remand.

The magistrate had earlier released Deol from custody after finding that Article 22(1) was not complied with but allowed the Punjab Police to arrest him by following the due course of law.