Is It Mandatory to Provide the Grounds of Arrest in Writing? Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2025)

Case Title: Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Decided on: November 6, 2025.

Bench: C.J. BR Gavai & Augustine George Masih.

Introduction

The information of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of both Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. This case examines an important issue as to whether the information of grounds of arrest is mandatory in every case, what should be the mode of communication and whether non-supply of grounds of arrest will vitiate the arrest and make it illegal? All these questions are answered in this case. In this article, we will summarise this case law and discuss its impact.

Facts

On 07.07.24, there was an accident of a BMW car with the complainant’s vehicle, and as a result of the collision, the wife of the complainant died. On 09.07.24, appellant was arrested, and he challenged the arrest, stating that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest. He challenged the arrest in the High Court, which was upheld as a legal arrest. Then, the appellant approached the Supreme Court with the following legal questions:

Issue

The following questions of law were formulated for consideration:

1. Whether in each and every case, even arising out of an offence under IPC/BNS, would it be necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused either before arrest or forthwith after arrest, and
2. Whether, even in exceptional cases, where on account of certain exigencies it will not be possible to furnish the grounds of arrest either before arrest or immediately after arrest, the arrest would be vitiated on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023)?

Arguments by Appellants

The appellant argued that it is a gross violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the BNSS, relying on Pankaj Bansal v. UOI, wherein it was held that to serve the intended purpose, the grounds of arrest must be necessarily communicated. Another case of Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), wherein, in the case of UAPA, it was held that the grounds of arrest should be furnished without any exception. Further, in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, it was referred to, wherein it was held that the Grounds of arrest are a mandatory requirement under Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments by Respondent

The mode of communication of the grounds of arrest is not specified under Section 47 BNSS. Relying on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as both cases pertain to special statutes. There is no mandate to provide in writing.

Amicus Curiae

The Supreme Court also took the help of an Amicus who stated that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrested person in all cases without any exception relying on two cases stated above, even the special statutes do not provide an exception from informing the grounds of arrest. However, it is not mandatory to be in writing, as it would not be practical, as observed in Vihaan Kumar. There should be a harmonious reading of Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha with Vihaan Kumar. For the timeframe, it should be at the time of arrest or at the earliest possible instance.

The non-communication of grounds of arrest amounts to violation of Article 22(1) entitling the accused to be released from custody. However, there can be no absolute rule that if an arrest is found contrary to law, all investigative procedures linked to arrest must be deemed to have vitiated. The effect of failure to communicate grounds of arrest would have to be seen in the context of proceedings when such an objection is raised and the nature of investigation conducted after the arrest of the accused.

Court’s Analysis

The Court observed that the genesis of informing the grounds of arrest flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which provides for personal liberty of a person. Article 22 of the Constitution further strengthens it, and it is also a statutory mandate through Section 47 of the BNSS (Sec. 50 of the CrPC).

In Pankaj Bansal, the case was related to PMLA offences, wherein, in Section 19(1) of PMLA, it was mandated that the grounds of arrest should be given at the earliest possible opportunity in writing without any exception. Non-communication of the grounds of arrest jeopardises the integrity of the arrest process. The giving of grounds of arrest in writing helps in effective compliance of Article 22 of the Constitution.

In Prabir Purkayastha, the same for UAPA case was referred and reiterated. In Vihaan Kumar, it was observed that though it is not practical to give grounds of arrest in writing in every situation. However, if it is given in writing, no controversy related to it can arise.

In Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. UOI, it was held that the ground of arrest must be communicated to the detenue in writing in a language which he understands.

Impact of arrest on Individual

The Court analysed the impact of the arrest on the family, friends, relatives, etc. The arrest impacts the mental and physical state of an arrested person. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, it was observed that arrest led to embarrassment, restriction of freedom, and a permanent scar on the arrested person. Further, In Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, the police office must be able to justify the arrest with reasons considering the impact of arrest on person.

Judgment

The Court held that the communication of the grounds of arrest is a mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution. Mere communication that is not understood by the person arrested does not fulfil the mandate of Article 22; the mode of communication should be such that he can defend himself. To achieve the mandate under Article 22(1) of the COI, grounds of arrest must be informed without exception in writing in the language he understands. Non-supply would not vitiate provided grounds is supplied within reasonable time which is in any case within two hours prior to the production of arrestee before the magistrate for remand proceedings.

If the above stated requirement is not fulfilled, the arrest will be rendered illegal, entitling the release of the arrestee.

Impact of this Judgment

This judgment helps in reducing any illegal arrest where an arrest is made out of enmity between the informant and the accused, without a proper justified reason and other such illegal arrests. This judgment upholds an important constitutional principle that should have been recognised earlier. However, considering the focus on the liberty of an individual and the development of rights in recent times by the Supreme Court, we can say that we are moving towards the formation of a State where rights are not merely a word but a part of practice and procedure.

Individual liberty in a country like India cannot be left to the whims of police officers, whose duty is to protect, but since its inception seen as the most corrupt department in relation to individual liberty. The reforms of the police are important; many judgments like this have been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but on the ground level, the execution of the judgment lacks the spirit with which it is passed. The sullen faces of officers when it is said that this is the law and you should act according to it, reflect that it would be seldom followed.

However, nothing can take the light and spirit of this judgment, as it uphold, strengthens and create an atmosphere of dialogue for Individual Liberty.