Unconstitutional Arrest: Vihan Kumar's Freedom Restored, Article 22(1) Violated, Police Fail to Communicate Grounds, Handcuffing in Hospital Condemned

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: VIHAAN KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA.

Citation: 2025 INSC 162 (Reportable)

Case Overview

The Supreme Court of India heard the criminal appeal of Vihan Kumar against the State of Haryana, regarding his arrest in connection with FIR No. 121/2023. The appellant challenged the legality of his arrest, alleging violations of his fundamental rights under Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India. The court's ruling focused primarily on the non-communication of the grounds of arrest to the appellant, deeming the arrest illegal.

Factual Background

Vihan Kumar was arrested on June 10, 2024, in relation to an FIR concerning offenses under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant claimed his arrest occurred around 10:30 am, while the State claimed it was at 6:00 pm.

The appellant was produced before the Magistrate on June 11, 2024, at 3:30 pm. After his arrest, he was hospitalized, where he was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed. This action was confirmed by the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS, Rohtak, and a departmental inquiry was initiated against the police officials involved.

Appellant's Submissions

The appellant's counsel argued that Vihan Kumar was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure). He also contended that he was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, violating Article 22(2) and Section 57 of the CrPC. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), emphasizing the necessity of communicating grounds for arrest.

State of Haryana's Submissions

The State argued that the grounds of arrest need not be in writing under Article 22(1) or Section 50 of CrPC; oral communication was sufficient. They contended that the arrest memo detailed the offense, date, and time of arrest. The State claimed a case diary entry at 6:10 pm on June 10, 2024, indicated that the appellant was informed of the grounds of arrest. Further, the grounds were laid out in the remand report of June 11, 2024.

Key Legal Principles

Arrest Without Warrant

The court noted that under Section 41 of CrPC (Section 35 of BNSS - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), police can arrest without a warrant for offenses punishable with more than seven years of imprisonment, subject to 'credible information' and 'reason to believe' that the offense has been committed. This must be recorded in writing. The court emphasized that a police officer cannot casually arrest a person.

Article 22(1) of the Constitution

Article 22(1) guarantees the right of an arrested person to be informed "as soon as may be" of the grounds for their arrest. This is a fundamental and mandatory right. The communication must be meaningful and effective, allowing the person to understand the basis for the arrest. The court referenced Pankaj Bansal, that this is not merely to apprise the arrestee but to enable them to seek legal counsel. The court reinforced Prabir Purkayastha which clarifies that the grounds must be communicated in a language that they understand. The purpose of conveying the ground of arrest is to allow a meaningful and effective legal remedy. The court suggested that the grounds must be furnished in writing to avoid disputes, as per the Pankaj Bansal ruling. The State is obligated to show that the requirements of Article 22(1) have been met.

Section 50 of CrPC and Section 47 of BNSS

Section 50 of CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS) obligates the arresting officer to communicate to the person arrested "full particulars of the offense" or "other grounds for such arrest." This is in addition to the requirements of Article 22(1), not a substitute. The Court ruled that this section cannot dilute the requirements of Article 22(1) and must not be interpreted to mean that communication of only “full particulars of the offence” is sufficient compliance.

Article 22(2)

Article 22(2) requires arrested persons to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. The court stated that since the appellant’s arrest was already deemed unconstitutional due to the violation of Article 22(1), it was not deciding the issue of violation of Article 22(2).

Consequences of Violation

Non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest, making it illegal from the outset. Continued custody based on remand orders is also illegal as the illegal arrest vitiates any further process of remand. Filing a charge sheet does not validate an illegal arrest due to constitutional violations. Any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand.

Role of the Magistrate

It is the Magistrate’s duty to ensure Article 22(1) compliance when remanding an arrested person.

Handcuffing and Chaining

The Court viewed the handcuffing and chaining of a sick person to a hospital bed as a direct violation of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees the right to live with dignity. The State was directed to issue necessary instructions to ensure this violation is not repeated.

Specific Findings Regarding Vihan Kumar

The Court found that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to Vihan Kumar. The State's assertion of communicating the grounds to Vihan's wife was deemed not compliant with Article 22(1). The State's argument of the grounds being in the remand report was rejected as the arrestee is not given this document. The case diary entry was considered vague and insufficient evidence of communication of grounds, and the court said that details about what grounds were communicated must be included. The Court noted that the Police have an obligation to prove that Article 22(1) has been complied with. The High Court's finding that the allegation of non-supply of the grounds of arrest is a ‘bald allegation’ was deemed erroneous.

Court's Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. Vihan Kumar’s arrest on June 10, 2024, was deemed illegal for failure to comply with Article 22(1). Vihan Kumar was ordered to be released immediately. The order stated that the finding does not affect the merit of the charge sheet and trial, however, a charge sheet filed does not validate an illegal arrest due to non-compliance with Article 22(1). Vihan Kumar was directed to furnish a bond as per Section 91 of the BNSS and to cooperate with the trial court. The State of Haryana was directed to issue guidelines to prevent handcuffing and chaining of hospitalized accused individuals and to ensure Article 22 compliance.

Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh's Concurring Opinion

Justice Singh reinforced the importance of communicating the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) and in the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act). He stated that this mandate is also applicable under Section 50 of CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS). He highlighted Section 50A of CrPC which makes it obligatory for the arresting officer to inform the friends, relatives, or nominated persons, in addition to the detainee, about the grounds of arrest. He emphasized that the rationale behind informing relatives and friends was to secure the release of the person arrested and to allow access to legal representation and legal processes. If the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest is not fulfilled, such arrest may be rendered illegal.

Rationale

The reasoning given by the Judges can be summarized as follows:

  1. The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
  2. The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided in a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in a language which he understands.
  3. The mode and method of communication must be such that the constitutional safeguard is achieved.
  4. When an arrested person alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden is on the police to prove compliance.
  5. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) is a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the said Article and also amounts to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21.
  6. Therefore, non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused, and further orders of remand are also vitiated.
  7. Filing of a charge sheet does not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1).
  8. When an arrested person is produced before a Magistrate, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) has been made.
  9. When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to order the release of the accused, even if there are statutory restrictions on the grant of bail.
  10. Informing the family member, like the wife, is not sufficient compliance with Article 22(1).
  11. The grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrested person directly, allowing them to seek legal recourse effectively.
  12. A police diary entry is not sufficient proof of communicating the grounds of arrest unless the specific grounds are recorded within it.

Excerpt

“The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1)”

“The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved;”

“When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1);”

“Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1);”

“When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and”

“When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.”

Points to Remember

Key learnings from this decision include:

  1. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for their arrest "as soon as may be".
  2. The information must be communicated effectively in a language the arrestee understands, enabling them to seek legal counsel.
  3. While not explicitly required by Article 22(1), providing the grounds of arrest in writing is the preferred practice to avoid disputes.
  4. Informing a family member, such as the wife, is not sufficient compliance with Article 22(1); the arrested person must be informed directly.
  5. A police diary entry alone is not sufficient proof of compliance; the entry must specifically record the grounds of arrest.
  6. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) renders the arrest illegal, and any subsequent remand orders are also invalidated.
  7. Filing a charge sheet does not validate an arrest that is unconstitutional due to the violation of Article 22(1).
  8. Handcuffing and chaining a hospitalized individual is a violation of Article 21, the right to life with dignity.
  9. Magistrates have a duty to ensure compliance with Article 22(1) before remanding an arrested person.
  10. When Article 22(1) is violated, the court must release the arrested person, which also qualifies as grounds for bail.
  11. Under Section 41 CrPC, police can arrest without a warrant for offenses punishable with more than seven years imprisonment, but only when there is "credible information".
  12. Section 50 of CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS) requires that an arrested person must be informed of the "full particulars of the offence" or "other grounds for such arrest" in addition to the requirement of Article 22(1).
  13. Section 50A of CrPC requires police officers making arrests to inform someone close to the arrested person about the arrest, but this does not relieve the duty to inform the arrestee.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the importance of the safeguards provided by the Indian Constitution regarding arrest and detention. The court emphasized that informing an arrested person about the grounds of their arrest is a fundamental right, not a mere formality. This ruling also highlights the responsibilities of law enforcement officers and magistrates in ensuring that these rights are not violated. Additionally, the judgment expresses concern regarding the treatment of detainees and the need for police reform. The court's decision clarifies the meaning of ‘communication’ and reemphasizes prior rulings to communicate in a way that the arrestee understands and recommends the usage of written documents. This ruling serves as a reminder to police and the judiciary on upholding the constitutional rights of the arrested person, thereby reinforcing the importance of individual liberty and due process.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more