Article 22(1) | Informing Relatives About Arrest Isn't Compliance Of Duty To Inform Arrestee Of Grounds Of Arrest : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (Feb. 7) clarified that informing persons' relatives about their arrest does not exempt the police or investigating agency from their legal and constitutional obligation to inform the arrested persons themselves of the grounds for their arrest.

“Communication of the grounds of arrest to the relative (wife) of the arrestee is no compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1).”, the court said.

Further, the Court rejected the State's claim that detailing the information about the arrest in the remand report, arrest memo, and case diary sufficiently complies with the constitutional mandate to furnish grounds of arrest to the arrestee under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court pointed out that these documents merely record the fact of the arrest, not the reasons behind it.

“Mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report is no compliance with the requirement of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest.”, the court said.

“The stand taken before the High Court (by State) was that the appellant's wife was informed about the arrest. Information about the arrest is completely different from the grounds of arrest. The grounds of arrest are different from the arrest memo. The arrest memo incorporates the name of the arrested person, his permanent address, present address, particulars of FIR and Section applied, place of arrest, date and time of arrest, the name of the officer arresting the accused and name, address and phone number of the person to whom information about arrest has been given. We have perused the arrest memo in the present case. The same contains only the information stated above and not the grounds of arrest. The information about the arrest is completely different from information about the grounds of arrest. Mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest.”, the court observed.

“Reliance was placed in this regard on the case diary entry of 10th June 2024 at 6.10 p.m., which records that the appellant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest. This was not pleaded before the High Court as well as in this Court in the reply of 1st respondent. This is an afterthought. Considering the stand taken in the reply filed before the High Court and this Court, only on the basis of a vague entry in the police diary, we cannot accept that compliance with Article 22(1) can be inferred. No contemporaneous documents have been put on record wherein the grounds of arrest have been noted. Therefore, reliance placed on the diary entries is completely irrelevant.”, the court added.

Background

The aforesaid clarification came by a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh while hearing the case where the police arrested the Appellant without furnishing him the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The State claimed that the information of the Appellant's arrest recorded in the arrest memo, remand report, and case diary comply with the constitutional requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest to the Arrestee (Appellant).

Aggrieved by the Punjab & Haryana High Court's refusal to declare the arrest illegal, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

In light of the aforesaid observation, the judgment authored by Justice Oka set aside the High Court's decision and declared the arrest illegal.

Also from Judgment: Arrest Illegal If Reasons Not Informed; When Art 22(1) Is Violated, Court Must Grant Bail Despite Statutory Restrictions : Supreme Court

Case Title: VIHAAN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR, SLP(Crl) No. 13320/2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishal Gosain, Adv. Mr. Anuroop Chakravarti, Adv. Mr. M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Adv. Mr. Archit Singh, Adv. Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, Adv. Ms. Zinnea Mehta, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Adv. M/S. Lawfic, AOR Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, AOR Mr. Archit Singh, Adv. Ms. Rupali Samuel, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. Mr. Kartikeye Dang, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Shariq Ansari, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Sinha, Adv. M/S. PLR Chambers And Co., AOR Mr. Basant R., Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Thukral, A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Kavinesh RM, Adv. Mr. Naman Vashishtha, Adv. Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. Mr. Raunak Arora, Adv. Mr. Sahil A. Garg Narwana, Adv. (For R-3) Mr. Dipesh Singhal, Adv. Mr. Kapil Gaba, Adv. Mr. Honey Gola, Adv. Mr. Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Adv.