The Supreme Court ruled that informing an arrested person of the grounds for arrest is a constitutional requirement under Article 22(1). Failure to do so invalidates the arrest. The grounds should be conveyed, preferably in writing, and verified by a judicial magistrate during remand, with proof burden on the officer.
Copyright infringement not intended
Picture Courtesy: Indian Express
The Supreme Court has ruled that the mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution to inform an arrested person about the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a constitutional requirement.
The Supreme Court ruled that police must inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest immediately after the arrest. This is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1), and failure to do so makes the arrest illegal.
It protects the fundamental rights of the arrestee under Article 21 (right to life and liberty) and Article 22(1), and also ensures that no one is detained without knowing the reason, which is essential for fairness and justice.
The grounds of arrest should also be communicated to the arrestee’s friends, relatives, or any person nominated by the arrestee.
The law does not precisely require written communication. However, the Supreme Court suggested that providing the grounds in writing is the best practice. Written communication avoids confusion and ensures clarity.
The court said that if the police fail to inform the arrestee promptly, the arrest becomes illegal. The arrestee must be released immediately, even if other legal procedures like filing a charge sheet or conducting a trial are ongoing.
When an arrestee is brought before a judicial magistrate for remand, the magistrate must verify whether the police informed the arrestee of the grounds of arrest. If the police failed to do so, the magistrate cannot remand the arrestee, and the arrestee must be released immediately.
|
If an arrestee argues that their rights under Article 22(1) were violated, then the burden of proof lies with the investigating officer. |
Must Read Articles:
SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES PMLA ARREST NOTIFICATION RULES
Source:
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q.Consider the following statements about Preventive Detention in India?
How many of the above statements are incorrect? A) Only one B) Only two C) Only three D) All four Answer: C Explanation: Statement 1 is Correct: Preventive detention allows authorities to detain a person before they commit a crime to prevent threats to public order or national security. Statement 2 is incorrect: According to Article 22 of the Constitution, a person detained under preventive detention cannot be held for more than three months without the opinion of an Advisory Board. Statement 3 is incorrect: Preventive detention is covered under Article 22, not Article 21. Statement 4 is incorrect: Unlike ordinary detention, a person under preventive detention does not have the fundamental right to legal representation by default. |
© 2025 iasgyan. All right reserved
