Supreme Court's Groundbreaking Ruling: Arrested Individuals Must Be Informed in Understandable Language
Supreme Court's Landmark Decision on Arrest Procedures
New Delhi: In a significant ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court mandated that individuals who are arrested must be provided with written reasons for their arrest in a language they can understand, irrespective of the nature of the offense or the law under which they are charged.
This ruling enhances the constitutional protections surrounding personal liberty. The court clarified that failure to provide written grounds for an arrest at the time of arrest does not invalidate the arrest, provided that these grounds are communicated in writing within a reasonable timeframe, specifically at least two hours before the accused is presented to a magistrate for remand.
The judgment was delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra, which stemmed from the notorious BMW hit-and-run incident in Mumbai in July 2024.
Justice Masih authored a comprehensive 52-page judgment, emphasizing that the requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which states that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for their arrest 'as soon as may be,' is not merely a procedural formality but a crucial safeguard for personal liberty.
The court asserted that to fulfill the constitutional requirement of Article 22(1), the reasons for arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrested individual in a language they comprehend, without exception.
It further stated that the obligation to inform the arrestee of the grounds for their arrest applies to all offenses under all statutes, including those under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860, now referred to as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
If the arresting officer is unable to provide the grounds in writing immediately after the arrest, they must do so orally, with a written communication following within a reasonable time frame, and at least two hours before the accused's remand hearing.
Failure to comply with these directives would render the arrest and subsequent remand unlawful, allowing the individual to be released.
The Supreme Court also instructed its registry to distribute copies of the judgment to all high court registrars and chief secretaries across states and Union territories.
The ruling addressed two primary questions: whether it is necessary to provide grounds for arrest in every case, including those under the IPC, and whether exceptional circumstances could justify a failure to provide these grounds immediately.
The court referenced previous rulings, stating that merely communicating the grounds in a language not understood by the arrested individual does not satisfy the constitutional requirement under Article 22. Such failures infringe upon the personal liberty guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22.
The essence of this constitutional mandate is to ensure that the accused understands the basis of the allegations against them, which can only be achieved if the grounds are communicated in a comprehensible language.
This ruling originated from appeals by Mihir Rajesh Shah, who contested the legality of his arrest, arguing that he was not provided with written reasons as mandated by law. Although the Bombay High Court recognized a procedural error, it upheld the arrest due to the seriousness of the offense.