Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh held that a duty is enjoined on the Magistrate to ascertain whether the compliance with Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) has been made. The reason for the same is that due to non-compliance the arrest is rendered illegal and therefore the arrestee cannot be remanded after the arrest is rendered illegal. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. Case?   

• The appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 30th August 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 
• The appellant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 121 of 2023, registered on 25th March 2023, for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• According to the appellant, he was arrested on 10th June 2024 at 10:30 a.m. at his office in HUDA City Centre, Gurugram, Haryana, and taken to DLF Police Station, Section 29, Gurugram. 
• The appellant was allegedly produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate (in charge) at Gurgaon on 11th June 2024 at 3:30 p.m., leading to claims of violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The appellant claims that neither the remand report nor the order dated 11th June 2024 mentioned the time of arrest. 
• The 1st respondent, however, asserts that the appellant was arrested at 6:00 p.m. on 10th June 2024, ensuring compliance with Article 22(2). 
• The order dated 4th October 2024 records that the appellant was hospitalized at PGIMS, Rohtak, after his arrest. 
• The appellant’s counsel submitted photographs showing that he was handcuffed and chained to his hospital bed while admitted. 
• As a result, a notice was issued on 4th October 2024 to the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS, asking for an affidavit on whether the appellant was handcuffed and chained. 
• The order dated 21st October 2024 records the Medical Superintendent’s admission that the appellant was indeed handcuffed and chained. 
• On 24th October 2024, Shri Abhimanyu, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, EOW I and II, Gurugram, Haryana, filed an affidavit confirming that the officers escorting the appellant to PGIMS had been suspended. 
• A departmental inquiry was initiated against the suspended officers by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 23rd October 2024. 
• Therefore, a writ petition was filed wherein it was asserted that the appellant was not informed of the grounds of arrest or the reasons for arrest. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that it follows from Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) that the grounds of arrest should be effectively and fully communicated to the arrestee in the manner. 
• Also, the grounds of arrest must be communicated in a language which the arrestee understands. 
• Further, the Court observed that the requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. 
• It is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible.  
• When a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. 
• If there is a failure to comply with the requirement of informing the grounds of arrest as soon as possible the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second. 
• Once the arrest is held unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1) the arrest itself is vitiated and the continued custody of such person based on orders of remand is also vitiated.  
• The Court made a very important observation that filing of chargesheet and taking of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional being violative of Article 21 and 22 of the COI. 
• Further, the Court clarified that the person can be arrested again. 
• Also, when an arrestee pleads before a Court that grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police. 
• Further, the Court held that a duty is enjoined on the Magistrate to ascertain whether the compliance with Article 22 (1) has been made. The reason for the same is that due to non-compliance the arrest is rendered illegal and therefore the arrestee cannot be remanded after the arrest is rendered illegal. 
• It is the duty of the Court to uphold the fundamental rights. 
• Further, the Court clarified in this case that communication of the grounds of arrest to the wife is not a valid compliance of Article 22 (1) of the COI. 
• Therefore, the Court held that in the facts of the case, the Court has no hesitation in holding that the arrest of the appellant was rendered illegal on account of failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the appellant as mandated by Article 22(1) of the COI.

What are the Rights Granted under Article 22 (1) of COI?

• Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950, provides a fundamental right, guaranteeing an arrested person the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest. 
• It states that anyone arrested and detained must be informed of the grounds for their arrest and the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. 
• This provision ensures transparency and fairness in arrest and detention, preventing arbitrary or unlawful detainment. 
• Further Section 50 of CrPC provides that a person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail. 
• Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) reiterates what is provided under Section 50 of CrPC.

What are the Important Points on Article 22 of COI held by the Court in this Case? 

• The important points on Article 22 of the COI laid down in this case are: 
  • The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of COI. 
  • The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved. 
  • When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1). 
  • Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused.  
    • Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial.  
    • But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1). 
  • When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and 
  • When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.

What are the Landmark Cases on Article 22 (1) of COI? 

• Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024): 
  • Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. 
  • This being the fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose.
• Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024): 
  • The Court held that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. 
  • Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.