Communication of Grounds of Arrest

GS-II | Polity and Governance | Fundamental Rights | Judiciary | Criminal Justice System

Why in News?

• In its September 2026 decision in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court ruled that the investigating agency will need the permission of the Magistrate to rearrest an individual who had been previously arrested, when the prior arrest was found to be unlawful because the agency failed to provide him with the written reasons for his arrest.
• The court further suggested that there be disciplinary proceedings initiated against the negligent investigative officer (IO) and that he/she be replaced as the IO for this matter.

What Governs the Communication of Grounds of Arrest?

• Article 21: The genesis of informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest flows from the constitutional safeguard that no person shall be deprived of life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
• Article 22(2): Every person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey. No person shall be detained beyond this period without the authority of a magistrate.
• Section 50 of CrPC (Now Section 47 of BNSS): The constitutional protection is found within Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which has been incorporated into Section 47 of the BNSS. This provision requires that when a person is arrested without a warrant, the police officer must inform him/her of the reasons for his/her arrest.
• Mode of Communication: Neither Article 22(2) of the Constitution nor Section 47 of the BNSS specifies how the reasons for arrest are to be communicated to a person being arrested.

How Has the Law Evolved?

• Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. (2023):
  • In the context of a case being tried under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the Supreme Court ruled that there was no logical basis upon which the provision of a written copy of the reasons for the arrest to the individual arrested as a general practice with no exceptions should be denied.
  • The accused may require an attorney if they dispute their oral communication, and if so, they will also require legal assistance to receive bail.
  • The Court stated that providing the accused with a copy of the written reasons for their arrest was an absolute requirement.
• Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (May 2024):
  • When dealing with a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Court stated that providing the reason for your arrest is more than just a procedural requirement, it’s an essential protection.
  • The goal of this process was to allow the person who has been arrested to obtain effective access to legal assistance, make objections at the remand hearing, and ask for bail.
  • A violation of Article 22(2) would result in a determination that the initial arrest was illegal, and any subsequent detention was therefore also illegal.
  • As a result, the individual should be released from custody.
• Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another (2025):
  • The Court noted that although it would have been better for the reasons for making an arrest to be given in writing, there was no legal requirement to do so.

What Did the Court Rule in the Rajesh Mihir Shah Case?

• Rajesh Mihir Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025):
  • Mandatory Communication: All offenses, regardless of which statute they are governed by, have a constitutional requirement to inform the person being arrested as to why they are being arrested. This includes offenses under the IPC, which is now referred to as the BNS.
  • Written communication: Grounds for an arrest must be stated in writing and communicated to the arrested person in a language that they can comprehend.
  • Oral Communication in Exceptional Circumstances: In case the arresting officer cannot put down the reasons for the arrest in writing immediately after making the arrest, he/she may provide those reasons through oral communication.
  • Time Limit: Within a reasonable amount of time after an arrest has been made, the reason(s) for the arrest should be provided in writing to the person arrested and, in no case, less than two hours prior to the time the arrested individual will appear before a magistrate to have their case reviewed regarding remand proceedings.
  • Non-compliance: Non-compliance will make the arrest and detention unlawful.

What Are the Consequences?

• Permission to Re-Arrest: The Court in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab ruled that if the investigating officer intends to re-arrest an accused for interrogation under police custody while conducting further investigation, then the investigating officer must apply to the appropriate magistrate for police custody of the accused person, and provide the grounds for applying for such custody.
• Explanation for Non-Compliance: The investigating officer must provide the rationale for not providing the basis for arresting the individual being investigated.
• Approval by Superior Authority: The application must carry the endorsement of the immediate superior authority.
• Magistrate’s Decision: After receiving the application, the magistrate shall decide it expeditiously.
• Change of Investigating Officer: The higher authority will transfer the investigation to a different investigator.
• Departmental Enquiry: The upper management will order a departmental investigation regarding the significant error in failing to provide the written reasons for the arrest to the individual arrested.
• Compensation:  The High Court has the power to order the payment of compensation as a public law remedy for a breach of Article 22(2) of the Constitution.
• However, the accused can still pursue remedies through private civil law.

Way Forward

• Communication of Grounds of Arrest: The reason for the arrest must be provided in writing to the person being arrested in a language they can comprehend.
• Compliance with Constitutional Safeguards: The constitutional requirement of informing an arrested person of the reason for their arrest is to be met.
• Accountability of Investigating Officers: The accountability of the investigating officer is that they are required to justify why they did not provide the reason for an individual being arrested. If there have been serious mistakes made by the investigating officer, then a department-wide investigation will be initiated.
• Judicial Oversight: The investigating officer has to seek the approval of the magistrate in order to make a second arrest and/or hold a person in custody for questioning, if they were arrested unlawfully first.
• Compensation: In cases where there has been a breach of Article 22(2), the High Court can order that the defendant pay damages or other form of compensation for such breaches.
• However, the defendant has the option to pursue a claim against the claimant through the private civil courts.

Conclusion

• The way in which people are informed why they have been arrested is an important protection against losing one’s life or personal freedom as guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution.
• Illegal arrest and subsequent remand result from noncompliance; however, if serious deficiencies exist, then the departmental inquiry, replacement of investigating officer and/or compensation may be used to rectify these deficiencies.

UPSC Mains Practice Questions

Q. Discuss the constitutional protections for communication of the reasons for arrest and what these protections mean to the individual freedom of someone accused of a crime.

Master Indian Polity for UPSC CSE 2027–2028! Strengthen your understanding of fundamental rights, constitutional safeguards, and important Supreme Court judgments with structured guidance through the Riyasat IAS UPSC Mentorship Program 2027–2028. Improve your current affairs analysis and Mains answer-writing skills.

Explore the program: UPSC Mentorship program