Why in the News?
The Supreme Court has ruled that Police must give written reasons for arrest—in a language the person understands—for all offences (including under IPC/BNS), at least two hours before presenting them to a magistrate; otherwise, the arrest is illegal.
Key Highlights
- Background & constitutional source
- The decision is rooted in Article 21 (personal liberty) and Article 22(1) (persons arrested must be informed of grounds of arrest).
- These constitutional protections are mandatory safeguards, not mere formalities.
- Case facts that triggered the judgment
- The appeals arose from arrests in the Worli BMW hit-and-run (July 2024). Accused argued their arrests were illegal because they were not furnished grounds of arrest. The Bombay High Court had upheld the arrests; the matter reached the Supreme Court.
- Core holding of the Court
- The Court held that informing grounds of arrest applies to all offences, including ordinary criminal laws (IPC/BNS).
- The arrestee must receive written grounds in a language they understand within a reasonable time and at least two hours before magistrate remand.
- Practical purpose and safeguards
- Purpose: to enable the accused to understand the basis of arrest, consult counsel, challenge remand, and seek remedies.
- The requirement protects mental dignity and prevents arbitrary detention; it must be recorded in police station entries and checked by the magistrate.
- Exceptions and realistic limits
- The Court recognised practical exceptions (e.g., flagrante delicto or immediate danger) where oral grounds at arrest are acceptable provided written grounds follow later and are supplied no later than two hours before remand.
- The Court warned against interpreting safeguards as procedural fetters that hamper legitimate police work.
| Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) 1. Guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 2. Encompasses procedural and substantive safeguards (e.g., fair trial, legal aid, humane conditions). 3. Courts interpret it broadly to include dignity, privacy, and health. 4. Arrest and detention laws must conform to Article 21’s standards. 5. Remedies for violation include bail, quashing of illegal detention, and compensation. Article 22(1) (Information of Grounds of Arrest) 1. Requires that every arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. 2. Ensures the arrestee can challenge the legality of detention, consult counsel, and seek remedies. 3. Protects against arbitrary or secret arrests. 4. Coexists with Article 22(2–7) safeguards relating to detention, police custody, and procedural rights. 5. Non-compliance may invalidate custody and remand. |
Key Terms
- Remand (Judicial Custody / Police Custody)
- Police custody: Short-term detention for investigation; requires magistrate’s authorization after arrest.
- Judicial remand: Court-ordered custody (normally in jail) when police request extension for investigation.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
- The modernised criminal code replacing the historic IPC nomenclature in recent reforms (substantive offences retained; language updated).
- Laws under BNS are subject to the same constitutional safeguards (Articles 21 & 22).
- Police and courts must align arrest/detention procedures under the BNS with constitutional guarantees.
- BNS continues to criminalise offences but courts review procedural compliance strictly.
- In flagrante delicto (Caught Red-Handed)
- A legal concept where an offender is caught in the act of committing an offence.
- Arrests in such cases may require immediate action and limited formalities.
- Courts accept oral grounds at arrest in genuine flagrante cases, provided written grounds follow promptly.
- The exception balances urgent policing needs with later verification and judicial review.
Implications
- Stronger personal liberty protection: Arrests without timely, comprehensible grounds risk being quashed and remands set aside.
- Operational change for police: Police stations must prepare timely written grounds and record who was informed; magistrates must verify compliance.
- Improved access to counsel and remedies: Arrestees get meaningful time to consult lawyers and challenge custody decisions.
- Judicial oversight strengthened: Magistrates have an affirmative duty to ensure constitutional safeguards are followed before ordering remand.
- Balance between rights and policing: The judgment recognises urgency in some arrests but insists safeguards are the norm, increasing accountability without immobilising police.
Challenges and Way Forward
| Challenges | Way Forward |
| Police training & mindset — many stations not used to drafting clear written grounds. | Train police on preparing concise written grounds, arrest memos, and linguistic requirements. |
| Language barriers — arrestees may speak regional dialects. | Provide grounds in local languages or through certified interpreters; maintain templates in multiple languages. |
| Record-keeping gaps — poor maintenance of station diaries and entries. | Mandate digital arrest registers with timestamps and sign-offs; link to magistrate review. |
| Emergency arrests (flagrante delicto) — need quick action may conflict with formalities. | Use oral-at-arrest + written-later protocol; require prompt documentation and magistrate verification. |
| Judicial workload — magistrates must check compliance, adding to hearings. | Standardise checklist for remand hearings; use brief compliance affidavits to streamline verification. |
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has reinforced that informing the arrested person of the written grounds of arrest is a constitutional safeguard tied to personal liberty. The two-hour rule before remand is a practical baseline that balances the rights of individuals with legitimate policing needs. Police and magistracy must reform procedures to comply.
| EnsureIAS Mains Question Q. Examine the constitutional basis and practical implications of the Supreme Court’s requirement that written grounds of arrest be furnished at least two hours before remand. How should police and courts implement this ruling without compromising legitimate law-enforcement interests? (250 Words) |
| EnsureIAS Prelims Question Consider the following statements: 1. Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires that every person arrested must be informed of the grounds of arrest at the earliest. 2. The Supreme Court held that written grounds of arrest must be provided in all cases and always at the time of arrest; there are no exceptions. 3. Failure to supply grounds of arrest in a language understood by the arrestee may render subsequent remand illegal. How many of the statements are correct? Answer: c) 1 and 3 only Explanations: Statement 1 is correct: Article 22(1) mandates that a person arrested must be informed, at the earliest, of the grounds for arrest. This is a constitutional safeguard linked to Article 21’s protection of personal liberty and the right to legal remedy. Statement 2 is incorrect: The Court required that written grounds be furnished within a reasonable time and at least two hours before remand, not necessarily always at the exact time of arrest. The Court accepted exceptions (e.g., flagrante delicto) where oral communication at arrest followed by written grounds later is permissible. Statement 3 is correct: The Court emphasised that supplying grounds in a language the arrestee understands is essential; failure to do so undermines constitutional protections and can render remand or continued custody illegal. |
Also Read | |
| UPSC Foundation Course | UPSC Daily Current Affairs |
| UPSC Monthly Magazine | CSAT Foundation Course |
| Free MCQs for UPSC Prelims | UPSC Test Series |
| Best IAS Coaching in Delhi | Our Booklist |
