Supreme Court's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Ruling On Written Grounds Of Arrest Operates Prospectively: Delhi High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
28 Jan 2026 8:23 AM IST
The Delhi High Court has held that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025), which mandates the furnishing of written grounds of arrest to an accused before remand in all offences, will operate prospectively and cannot be applied to arrests made prior to the date of the ruling.
The Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain thus dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of the petitioner's arrest in a murder case on the ground that the written grounds of arrest were not furnished to him at the time of arrest.
Petitioner, arrested on February 7, 2024, in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder) and 34 of the IPC, argued that his arrest was unconstitutional for non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
He relied on a series of Supreme Court judgments, including Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, Vihaan Kumar, and Mihir Rajesh Shah, to contend that non-supply of written grounds of arrest rendered the arrest illegal.
However, the High Court noted that the Mihir Rajesh Shah judgment was delivered on November 6, 2025, much after the Petitioner's arrest, and therefore could not be invoked retrospectively.
The Bench held that the uniform requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest, as crystallised in Mihir Rajesh Shah, would govern arrests 'henceforth'. It said,
"The law laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), insofar as it mandates uniform written communication of grounds of arrest, operates prospectively".
The Court further observed that the Petitioner was clearly aware of the basis of his arrest from the very inception, possessing clear and evident contemporaneous awareness, as the prosecution's case was set out in the remand papers and he was represented by counsel at every stage, including during remand proceedings where police custody was opposed on merits.
Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025), the Court applied the "prejudice-oriented test". The Bench held that mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal unless it results in "demonstrable prejudice" by denying a fair opportunity to the accused to defend themselves.
Citing the absence of any demonstrated prejudice coupled with the inordinate delay of over one year and nine months in raising the grievance, the Court dismissed the petition.
Appearance: For the Petitioner: Mr. Chetan and Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Lao, St. Counsel (Crl.) with Ms. Priyam Agarwal and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates Insp. Gianender Singh and SI Vikram Singh, PS Welcome
Case title: Karan Singh v. State
Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 4203/2025