The apex court clarified that this constitutional mandate applies not just to special laws like the PMLA or UAPA, but also to offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The judgment strengthens due process safeguards across all criminal statutes.
Justice Masih, authoring the judgment, emphasized that informing an arrested person of the reasons for arrest is not a procedural formality but a binding constitutional duty. It ensures the right to legal representation, protection against arbitrary detention, and the ability to seek bail.
Oral Intimation Allowed Only in Urgent Circumstances
The Court permitted oral communication of arrest grounds only in exceptional situations, such as when a crime is committed in the presence of police officers. However, it mandated that the written grounds must be supplied within a reasonable time, and no later than two hours before remand proceedings.
“If written grounds are not provided within this period, both the arrest and remand become illegal,” the bench ruled. This interpretation redefines procedural fairness and strengthens accountability within law enforcement agencies.
Background of the Case
The case originated from the arrest of Mihir Rajesh Shah in a Mumbai hit-and-run incident. Although the Bombay High Court acknowledged procedural lapses, it declined to term the arrest illegal. Shah appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that he had not received written grounds for his arrest as mandated by Article 22(1).
Accepting the petition, the Supreme Court declared his arrest unlawful, thereby setting a precedent that affects all future arrests across India. The Court also made Shah’s interim bail permanent, restricting its analysis to the legality of non-furnishing of arrest grounds.
Implications of the Ruling
The Supreme Court directed all High Courts and State Governments to implement the ruling immediately. This judgment is expected to significantly influence police procedure, ensuring higher transparency and adherence to constitutional norms.
Legal experts say the ruling bridges a crucial gap between the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the constitutional rights of citizens. It reinforces that compliance with Article 22(1) is non-negotiable and any deviation can invalidate an arrest.
Judgment Citation and Direction
The case, titled Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1066), has been hailed as a landmark in reinforcing individual liberty and procedural justice. The ruling aligns India’s arrest protocols with international human rights standards.
The Court’s directive to circulate the judgment to all state authorities underscores its national significance. It sends a strong message that due process cannot be sacrificed even in serious criminal investigations.