Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
Supreme Court of India · 7 February 2025 · 2 judges · 2025 INSC 162
Informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); failure to do so vitiates the arrest and remand, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.
Facts
The appellant was arrested by the Haryana police in connection with an FIR for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. He challenged his arrest before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, pleading that he had not been informed of the grounds of arrest and had not been produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours. The police reply before the High Court said only that his wife had been informed of the arrest. The High Court called the allegation bald and found no violation of Article 22(1). Before the Supreme Court the police claimed that the grounds had been explained to his wife, recorded in a case diary entry, and set out in the remand report. It also came on record that, while in hospital after his arrest, the appellant had been handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed.
Questions before the Court
- Whether the appellant's arrest was illegal for failure to inform him of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1).
- What the requirement of Article 22(1) demands, who bears the burden of proving compliance, and what follows from non-compliance.
- Whether filing of a charge sheet and later remand orders cure an arrest made in breach of Article 22(1).
What the Court held
- Informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement, not a formality. Sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds must be communicated effectively in a language the arrestee understands; Article 22(1) does not require writing, though giving the grounds in writing is advisable.
- When an arrestee alleges non-compliance, the burden is always on the investigating officer or agency to prove compliance. Telling the arrestee's wife, informing him only of the fact of arrest, an arrest memo, a remand report or a vague case diary entry is not compliance.
- Non-compliance with Article 22(1) also violates Article 21 and vitiates the arrest and later remand orders. It does not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet or trial, but filing a charge sheet does not validate the illegal arrest.
- A Magistrate must ascertain compliance with Article 22(1) at remand. Where violation is established the court must order release forthwith, even if statutory restrictions on bail exist.
- Section 50 CrPC (Section 47 BNSS) cannot dilute Article 22(1); its requirement is in addition to the constitutional one.
- Handcuffing the appellant and chaining him to a hospital bed violated his right to live with dignity under Article 21, and the State was directed to issue instructions to prevent it.
Why it matters
The judgment sets out in six conclusions what Article 22(1) requires when a person is arrested without a warrant: the manner of communicating grounds, the burden of proof on the police, the effect of non-compliance on arrest, remand and charge sheet, the Magistrate's duty at remand, and release as a remedy despite statutory bail restrictions. It applies the reading of Article 22(1) in Pankaj Bansal, a PMLA case, and in Prabir Purkayastha to arrests without warrant under the CrPC and BNSS.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible.”
“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.”
“When an arrestee pleads before a Court that grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police.”
“The contention that the appellant's wife was informed about the grounds of arrest is an afterthought, as no such contention has been raised in the reply filed before the High Court. Communication of the grounds of arrest to the wife of the arrestee is no compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1).”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 22(1), Constitution
- Article 21, Constitution
- Section 50, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Now: BNSS 47 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 41(1)(ba), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Now: BNSS 35(1) (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 50A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Now: BNSS 48 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 47, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Case and bench
- Parties
- Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024)
- Decided
- 7 February 2025
- Bench
- Abhay S. Oka, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment by Abhay S. Oka, J.; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J. concurred with the analysis and conclusions and added a separate concurring opinion on Section 50A CrPC.
Questions on this case
From free Law Maker papers. Try each one before you open the answer.
Question 1 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 3
In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (7 February 2025), the Supreme Court held that where the grounds of arrest are not communicated to an arrested person as required by Article 22(1):
- A. the arrest and the orders of remand are vitiated, but the investigation, the charge-sheet and the trial are not vitiated
- B. the defect in the arrest is cured once a charge-sheet is filed within the time prescribed for completing investigation
- C. the investigation, the charge-sheet and the trial are all vitiated, and the accused is entitled to an acquittal
- D. the arrest is only irregular and not illegal, so the accused may claim compensation but cannot claim release
Show the answer
A. the arrest and the orders of remand are vitiated, but the investigation, the charge-sheet and the trial are not vitiated
The Court held that non-compliance with Article 22(1) violates Articles 22 and 21 and vitiates the arrest and the consequent remand orders, but does not vitiate the investigation, charge-sheet or trial; equally, filing a charge-sheet does not validate the breach. The requirement is reflected in Section 47 BNSS (formerly Section 50 CrPC).
Question 2 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 3
Consider the following statements based on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025): 1. When an arrested accused alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden is always on the investigating officer or agency to prove compliance. 2. When the arrested person is produced for remand, the Magistrate must ascertain whether Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards have been complied with. 3. Even after a violation of Article 22(1) is established, statutory restrictions on bail prevent the court from releasing the accused. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A. 1, 2 and 3
- B. 1 only
- C. 2 and 3 only
- D. 1 and 2 only
Show the answer
D. 1 and 2 only
Statements 1 and 2 are conclusions (c) and (e) in paragraph 21. Statement 3 is wrong: once a violation of Article 22(1) is established the court must forthwith order release, and this is a ground for bail even where statutory restrictions on bail exist (conclusion (f)).