Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana (2025)

• Case: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025)
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Core issue: Constitutional safeguards relating to arrest and communication of grounds of arrest.
• The arrested person must be properly and meaningfully informed of the grounds of arrest.
• Merely informing the relative of the arrested person does not satisfy this requirement.
• The requirement is linked to Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
• Under the BNSS, 2023, the corresponding provision is Section 47.
• The judgment emphasises protection against arbitrary exercise of State power.

Constitutional Provisions to Remember

• Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty.
• Article 22(1): An arrested person must be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest and has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner.
• Article 22(2): An arrested person must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey.
• BNSS Section 47: Information regarding grounds of arrest.
• BNSS Section 58: Person arrested not to be detained for more than 24 hours without magistrate’s authority.

Prelims MCQs

Q1. With reference to Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), consider the following statements:

1. An arrested person must be meaningfully informed of the grounds of arrest.
2. Merely informing the relatives of the arrested person fulfils the constitutional requirement.
3. The requirement is connected with Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 1 and 3 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (b) 1 and 3 only

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that the arrested person himself must be properly and meaningfully informed of the grounds of arrest. Merely communicating the arrest to relatives does not satisfy Article 22(1).