Supreme Court Holds Written Grounds of Arrest Mandatory in All Cases; Failure Renders Arrest and Remand Illegal
Case Name: Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Another (with connected appeals)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1288
Date of Judgment/Order: 06 November 2025
Bench: Augustine George Masih, J.
Held: The Supreme Court held that informing an accused of the grounds of arrest in writing, and in a language he understands, is a mandatory constitutional requirement flowing from Article 22(1) and integral to the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. This obligation applies to all arrests, whether under BNS 2023 (formerly IPC) or special statutes, without exception. The Court ruled that oral communication is insufficient as it defeats the purpose of enabling the accused to consult counsel, oppose remand, and seek bail. While recognising that exigent circumstances may delay immediate written communication, the Court held that written grounds must still be furnished at the earliest possible opportunity and always prior to remand. Non-communication renders the arrest illegal and vitiates the remand, regardless of subsequent filing of chargesheets. The Court harmonised earlier judgments such as Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Vihaan Kumar, clarifying that written communication is now the minimum constitutional standard.
Summary: The appeals arose from a 2024 hit-and-run case in which the appellant, accused of causing a fatal collision while driving under the influence, challenged his arrest on the ground that he was not furnished written grounds of arrest as mandated by Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS 2023 (previously Section 50 CrPC). The Bombay High Court acknowledged the procedural lapse but upheld the arrest, reasoning that the accused was aware of the allegations, had attempted to evade arrest, and that substantial material linked him to the offence. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant relied on Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Vihaan Kumar to argue that written communication is mandatory in all offences, not just special statutes. The State contended that the law does not require written grounds and that oral communication suffices. After examining constitutional text, statutory framework, and evolving jurisprudence, the Court held that the right to be informed of grounds of arrest is a substantive safeguard, not a formality, and that written communication is essential for meaningful exercise of legal rights. The Court also highlighted the stigma and long-lasting impacts of arrest, emphasising that the accused must be placed in a position to challenge custody effectively. It further held that grounds must be given in a language understood by the arrestee, following the principle in Harikisan and Lallubhai Patel.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals on the question of law, declaring that the constitutional and statutory mandate requires written grounds of arrest to be furnished in every case, in a language the accused understands. It held that failure to do so renders the arrest unconstitutional and the remand orders invalid. However, recognising the gravity of the underlying offences and the stage of proceedings, the Court moulded relief: while affirming the illegality of the arrest procedure, it did not order immediate release but directed strict future compliance and clarified the binding nature of the constitutional mandate. The judgment thus redefines arrest jurisprudence by making written grounds of arrest a universal requirement. All connected matters were disposed of accordingly.