Context: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that informing an accused of the grounds of arrest is not merely a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement.

• The Supreme Court declared the arrest of Vihaan Kumar, an accused in a financial fraud case, as unconstitutional and ordered his immediate release.

• Failure to inform the accused of the reason for arrest amounts to a violation of fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

Grounds of Arrest Under Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

• Communication of Grounds for Arrest: Any police officer or authorized person making an arrest without a warrant must immediately inform the arrested person of the full particulars of the offence or other grounds for arrest.

• Right to Bail for Non-Bailable Offences: If a police officer arrests a person without a warrant for an offence that is not non-bailable, the arrested person must be informed about:

• Their right to be released on bail.

• The option to arrange for sureties on their behalf.

• Alignment with Previous Law: This provision is similar to Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), ensuring legal protection and transparency in the arrest process.

Key Highlights of Judgement

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: Failure to inform the grounds of arrest violates fundamental rights of accused under Articles 21 and 22(1).  

• Article 21: No person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law.

• Article 22(1): A person arrested must be informed of the reasons immediately and has right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

• Section 50A of CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS): Under this, court emphasized the importance of informing accused person’s friends, relatives, or nominated persons about grounds of arrest.

• Bail Implications: Non-compliance with Article 22(1) can be grounds for granting bail, overriding statutory restrictions.

• Clear Communication of Grounds in a language the arrestee understands.

Supreme Court’s Emphasis

• Burden of Proof on Police: If an arrested person claims non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden is on the police to prove compliance.

• The police must provide evidence that the requirement was met.

• Magistrate’s Duty: When an arrested person is produced before a judicial magistrate, it is the magistrate’s duty to verify compliance with Article 22(1).

• If a violation is found, the magistrate must order the accused’s release.

• Article 21 – Right to Life & Personal Liberty: The Supreme Court stated that failure to inform the accused of the grounds of arrest also violates Article 21.

• Such failure amounts to deprivation of liberty without due legal process.

• The court reaffirmed that no person can be deprived of personal liberty except through a fair and legal procedure.

Related Judgements of Supreme Court

• Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India and others (2023): Grounds of arrest must be supplied to accused in writing will also apply in cases registered under UAPA 1967.

• Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) case (2024): Communication of grounds of arrest or detention is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation.