Reasons for arrest must be reported, even for IPC and BNS offences: Supreme Court | Legal news

“The requirement to inform an arrested person of the reasons for arrest, in view of and under Article 22(1) (Protection from arrest and detention in certain cases) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality but a mandatory and binding constitutional guarantee included in Part III of the Constitution under the head of Fundamental Rights,” the bench said, adding that “the reasons for arrest must be communicated in writing to the detainee in the language he understands…within a reasonable time and at any time of the case at least two hours before the detainee is brought for remand proceedings before a judge.”

Failure to comply will make the arrest and subsequent detention illegal and the person will be free to be released, she added.

The ruling came on appeals arising from the arrest of the accused in the BMW hit-and-run case in Worli in July 2024. The accused claimed that their arrest was unlawful because they were not provided with grounds for arrest. The Bombay High Court upheld their arrest, after which they approached the Supreme Court.

Granting bail to the accused, the Supreme Court decided not to delve into the merits of the case but only to examine the legal issues including the need to provide reasons for arrest of the accused in the IPC/BNS offences.

Responding to questions, the bench said: “The origin of informing the grounds for a person’s arrest stems from the constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which states that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law.’ Article 22(1) ‘reinforces’ this ‘by providing that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for his arrest as soon as possible and shall not be detained without being informed of such grounds’.

The jury said that “the arrest of an individual invariably affects not only the arrested person himself but also the people associated with him, i.e. family, friends, relatives, etc., affecting their psychological balance and overall social well-being… The effects of arrest are multi-dimensional and extend not only to the societal impact but also to the physical and mental health of the person. Mental health problems such as depression arising from custodial confinement can be exacerbated by the unsuitable and overcrowded conditions prevailing in prisons.” Such conditions severely affect the basic rights of the detained person and detract from his dignity and personal freedom.

It said that “the useful purpose of reporting the reasons for arrest is to enable the person to understand the basis of his or her arrest and seek legal counsel to challenge his or her detention, remand, seek bail and/or avail any other remedy that may be available to him/her under the law” and “early access to legal counsel becomes an essential goal to ensure the protection of the personal liberty of the detained person.”

She said, “The manifestation of the constitutional guarantee required to be achieved in Article 22…is that the arrested person must be well-equipped not only with information relating to his arrest but with its reasons and reasons before appearing before a judge so that he can effectively defend himself and oppose the police, judicial custody and even press for bail.”

“Therefore, the obligation to inform the detainee of the reasons for the arrest is not just a procedural formality, but rather stems from the fundamental right to personal liberty which determines the further path of protection against oppressive restrictions imposed on the freedom of movement in society of the detainee during pretrial detention.”

She said the language of Article 22(1) “shows that the intention of the framers of the Constitution…was not to create any exceptional circumstances, and instead reads as follows: No person shall be arrested….”

The bench ruled that “merely providing reasons in a language that the detained person does not understand does not fulfill the constitutional mandate under Article 22… Failure to provide such reasons in a language understood by the detainee renders the constitutional guarantees illusory and violates the personal freedom of the person as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22.”

“The police officer/person making any arrest must record the fact of who has been informed of such arrest in a book which must be kept at the police station” and the judge must ensure that this is complied with when the arrested person is produced for remand purposes, it said.

The ruling acknowledged that “there may be cases where it may not be practicable to provide the reasons for arrest to the arrested person at the time of arrest or immediately” and “strict insistence on reporting the reason(s) for arrest in writing before or at the time of carrying out the arrest or immediately thereafter may result in a police officer being unable to discharge his duty and responsibility efficiently and effectively.”

She said that “constitutional guarantees, despite their value, cannot be interpreted in a way that allows them to become a procedural obstacle that hinders law enforcement agencies in the lawful performance of their duties.”

“In cases where the police already possess documentary material that provides a satisfactory basis for arrest, written reasons for arrest must be provided to the arrestee at the time of his or her arrest. However, in exceptional circumstances such as offenses against the body or property committed in flagrante delicto (where a person is caught red-handed), where reporting the reasons for arrest in writing upon arrest becomes impractical, it should be sufficient for the police officer or other arresting person to communicate this orally to the person at that time and later, a written copy of the reasons for arrest must be provided to the person arrested at Within a reasonable period of time, and no later than at least two hours before the detainee is brought before a judge for pretrial detention procedures.