Furnishing grounds of arrest in writing is a mandatory fundamental right provided under Article 22(1). In Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court affirmed that it cannot remain a mere procedural formality; it is essential for the accused to be informed of the grounds of arrest so he can prepare his defence and apply for bail. The latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol further improves the interpretation of this fundamental right.
The brief facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged against the accused on 13.05.2026; the main allegation was that the accused was living with the wife of the informant since Oct, 2024 along with two daughters. The alleged victim was the elder daughter. The allegations were under Section 64, 65(1) & 351 of BNS read with Section 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. On 17.05.2026, the accused was arrested and was presented before the magistrate on 18.05.2026. The magistrate noted that the grounds of arrest were not provided, and he was presented before the magistrate after 24 hours.
The magistrate referred to the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah and pointed out the violation. That there is a violation of Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India. However, the magistrate stated that a police officer may re-arrest after moving an application for remand or custody, providing reasons and necessity after supplying the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused. The accused moved to HC under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) wherein similar observation was made by the HC.
Thereafter, the accused approached the Supreme Court, wherein the Addn. Advocate General stated in his counter-affidavit that there is no bar on fresh arrest under BNSS or the Constitution after providing the grounds of arrest. Also, he mentioned that there is departmental enquiry and disciplinary action against erring officers have been initiated.
Can an accused who has suffered breach of both clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India be re-arrested for the same offence? If so, under what circumstances, in what manner and the procedure that is required to be followed in such a case.
Supreme Court referred to the case of Pankaj Bansal v. UOI, wherein the accused was arrested under Section 19 of PMLA. The right under Article 22(1) to be informed of the grounds of arrest was violated. The Supreme Court observed that the grounds of arrest is not provided only to know why he was arrested but also to seek legal counsel and present bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. The Supreme Court stated that the arrested person is not in a calm and collected frame. They may forget the verbal communication, therefore, providing the grounds of arrest in writing is essential.
The second case was Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), wherein the arrest was made under UAPA, and similar observations were made by the Supreme Court as in the case of Pankaj Bansal.
In Vihaan Kumar v. State of AP and Ors., the Supreme Court stated that communication of grounds of arrest means providing sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting grounds of arrest. If Grounds are not provided, it will also be a violation of article 21. When such violation is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused.
Supreme Court referred Mihir Rajesh Shah, wherein it was mandated by the Supreme Court that written grounds of arrest are mandatory.
Finally, two more cases were referred, Sri Darshan and Sonam Raghuvanshi. In the former, it was stated that delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot by itself constitute a valid ground for grant of bail, and in the latter case, the court differentiated between non-service of grounds of arrest and non-furnishing of adequate reasons thereunder. The court stated that the first would vitiate the arrest and in the second case, whether prejudice caused or not due to the same will be looked into.
Supreme Court rejected the principles held in these two cases, namely Sri Darshan and Sonam Raghuvanshi, while stating that the law laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah is the correct legal position, and it is binding.
The core principle of Article 22(1) are:
When an accused is released for violation of article 22(1), he is not enlarged on bail. He is released from illegal and unconstitutional detention.
Same procedure to be followed for breach of article 22(2) as explained for article 22(1).
Supreme Court held that the ground of arrest provided in writing is a mandatory prerequisite for a valid arrest. However, once it is proved that the ground of arrest is not provided in writing by the police officer, as laid down in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah, it will cause the immediate release of the arrested person. However, in the case of serious and grave offences, the police officer may seek re-arrest by filing an application before the magistrate. The application should also provide the reasons for non-supply at the 1st instance and further provide grounds for arrest of the person.
To rule out any foul play or collusion. The application must have endorsement of superior authority. So that the superior authority can take remedial steps. It is the duty of the superior authority that he shall hand over the investigation to another office and initiate a departmental enquiry against the officer who has violated fundamental rights. If there is any adverse finding in the enquiry, departmental action shall be taken, with an entry in the service book.
This judgment further develops the dialogue around Article 22 and the extent of police power. The mention of breach of Article 22 in the service book will have an adverse effect on the career of police officers. Therefore, they will take precautions before any kind of illegal or unconstitutional arrest and they will respect the principles laid down in the Constitution. Any investigating agency is a powerful body; it has the power to affect the fundamental rights of a person. This kind of check and balance, as created by the Supreme Court, is essential for improving the system and balancing interests at both ends.
The case of Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (2026) deals with the violation of Articles 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India due to non-furnishing of grounds of arrest and non-compliance with the mandatory procedure of arrest. The Supreme Court also examined whether an accused who has suffered such a violation can be re-arrested for the same offence and the procedure required to be followed.
2. Is furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing mandatory under Article 22(1)?
Yes, furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing is a mandatory fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. As discussed in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, the grounds of arrest must be provided in writing so that the accused can understand the reasons for arrest, consult legal counsel, prepare a defence, and apply for bail.
3. What happens when the police violate Article 22(1) by not providing written grounds of arrest?
When the police fail to provide written grounds of arrest, it results in a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. As explained in the article, such non-compliance may entail the immediate release of the arrested person from illegal and unconstitutional detention. Subsequent filing of a chargesheet and an order of cognizance will not validate such an unconstitutional arrest.
4. Can an accused be re-arrested for the same offence after a violation of Article 22(1) and Article 22(2)?
The Supreme Court in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (2026) considered whether an accused who has suffered a breach of both clauses of Article 22 can be re-arrested for the same offence. In cases involving serious and grave offences, the police may seek re-arrest by filing an application before the magistrate, explaining the reasons for non-supply of the grounds of arrest at the first instance and providing the grounds and necessity for re-arrest, subject to the procedure laid down by the Court.
5. What procedure is required to be followed for re-arrest after a violation of Article 22(1)?
The police officer must move an application before the magistrate, explaining the reasons for non-supply of the grounds of arrest at the first instance and providing the grounds for arrest and the necessity for re-arrest. The application must also bear the endorsement of a superior authority to rule out any foul play or collusion and to ensure accountability.
6. What is the role of superior authorities in a departmental enquiry against police officers?
The superior authority must take remedial steps when a violation of fundamental rights is committed by a police officer. As discussed in the article, the superior authority must hand over the investigation to another officer and initiate a departmental enquiry against the officer who has violated the fundamental rights of the arrested person. If an adverse finding is recorded in the enquiry, departmental action shall be taken, with an entry in the service book.
7. Is release for violation of Article 22(1) the same as release on bail?
No, release for violation of Article 22(1) is different from release on bail. When an accused is released due to a violation of Article 22(1), the person is released from illegal and unconstitutional detention and is not enlarged on bail. Such release does not amount to acquittal from the alleged offence.
8. What are the core principles of Article 22(1) laid down in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (2026)?
The core principles of Article 22(1), as discussed in the article, are that the grounds of arrest must be provided in writing and in a language understood by the accused; a copy must be provided to the accused as a matter of course and without exception; the right is a fundamental and statutory right; breach or non-compliance may entail immediate release of the arrested person; and subsequent filing of a chargesheet or an order of cognizance will not validate an unconstitutional arrest.
9. Which Supreme Court judgments were referred to in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (2026)?
The Supreme Court referred to Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra. The Court also considered Sri Darshan and Sonam Raghuvanshi in relation to delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest and the distinction between non-service of grounds of arrest and non-furnishing of adequate reasons.
10. What is the significance of departmental action against police officers for violating fundamental rights?
Departmental action against police officers for violating fundamental rights serves as a check on arbitrary exercise of police power. An adverse finding in the departmental enquiry and an entry in the service book may have an adverse effect on the career of the erring officer. Such measures encourage police officers to comply with constitutional safeguards and prevent illegal or unconstitutional arrests.
Section 187 of BNSS provides the procedure when an investigation cannot be completed within 24…
Sahab Singh alias Sat Pal v. State of Haryana: Conviction Cannot Rest on Unreliable “Last…
IntroductionBackground of the CaseHigh Court Had Earlier Refused To Quash ProceedingsPrinciple: Informant Is Not Always…
IntroductionThree-Year LimitationGovernment Power Is Not UnlimitedProtection of Property RightsConclusionFAQs Introduction The Supreme Court has held…
IntroductionAbetment Requires More Than a Troubled MarriageCriminal Liability Cannot Be Based on General AllegationsConclusionFAQs Case:…
IntroductionWhat Actually HappenedAI Cannot Replace Legal VerificationWhy the Judgment MattersShould AI Be Used in the…