Mandatory Communication of Grounds of Arrest: A Landmark Precedent from “Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana”

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s recent decision in Vihaan Kumar v. The State of Haryana (2025 INSC 162) sets out a pivotal legal principle regarding the constitutional requirements under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The ruling solidifies that any arrest made without promptly communicating the grounds of arrest, in a language understood by the accused, stands vitiated. Even subsequent judicial orders, including remand and the filing of a chargesheet, cannot cure this fundamental constitutional defect.

This appeal was filed by the Appellant, Mr. Vihaan Kumar, challenging the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court had denied him relief despite clear allegations that the arresting officers failed to inform him of the grounds of arrest. Additionally, evidence demonstrated that the Appellant had been handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed, raising serious questions about respect for human dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s decision addresses these issues, emphasizing the non-derogable nature of constitutional safeguards afforded under Articles 21 and 22.

The key parties in this matter were:

Appellant: Mr. Vihaan Kumar
Respondent No. 1: State of Haryana
Respondent No. 2: The complainant who filed the FIR underlying the arrest

The Judgment has far-reaching implications for criminal procedure in India, particularly concerning arrests made without a warrant. Below is a comprehensive examination of the Supreme Court’s findings, reasoning, and the new legal standard it establishes.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the arrest of the Appellant was rendered illegal for violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Notably, the Court ordered immediate release of the Appellant from custody, clarifying that no subsequent order—such as remand or cognizance upon filing of chargesheet—may validate an unconstitutional arrest.

In particular, the Court emphasized:

Failure to Inform Grounds of Arrest: Since the Appellant was never meaningfully informed of the grounds of his arrest, his fundamental right under Article 22(1) was clearly infringed.
Violation of Article 21: Being physically restrained to a hospital bed and handcuffed also contravened the fundamental right to dignity.
Directions to State Authorities: The Court directed the State of Haryana to issue clear guidelines to prevent handcuffing or chaining detainees in a manner that violates their right to dignity. It also emphasized strict adherence to proper arrest procedures, ensuring grounds of arrest are always communicated to the arrestee.
No Validation by Subsequent Orders: The Court explicitly held that filing of a chargesheet and issuance of remand orders cannot “cure” the illegality of an arrest that is unconstitutional from the outset.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

In arriving at its decision, the Supreme Court relied on several of its own judgments interpreting Article 22(1), especially:

PANKAJ BANSAL v. UNION OF INDIA (2024) 7 SCC 576: The Court underscored that the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the accused in a meaningful way, preferably in writing, so that the accused can effectively exercise the right to legal counsel and challenge the arrest.
PRABIR PURKAYASTHA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) (2024) 8 SCC 254: Reiterated that if grounds of arrest are not conveyed properly or in a language the arrested person understands, the arrest is unconstitutional.
Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra (1962 SCC OnLine SC 117): A Constitution Bench decision relating to preventive detention under Article 22(5). The Court noted that the language used in Articles 22(1) and 22(5) is identical on the requirement of communicating grounds for arrest or detention.
Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 427: Highlighted that “communication” must be more than a mere formality; the person must effectively understand the grounds of detention or arrest.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The legal reasoning focused on the robust constitutional mandate that underpins Article 22(1). According to the Court, compliance with this mandate is not a trivial procedural requirement but a fundamental right. The principal strands of the Court’s reasoning are:

Article 22(1) as a Fundamental Guarantee: Article 22(1) clearly states that every individual who is arrested must be informed, “as soon as may be,” of the grounds of arrest. This is integral to the overarching right to liberty under Article 21.
Specific Duty of the Arresting Officer: Under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), or Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), an arresting officer is required to furnish full particulars of the offence or grounds. Failure to follow this step is fatal to the arrest’s legality.
Non-Compliance Renders Arrest Illegal: Where courts find that the arrestee was not informed of the grounds of arrest in a language he understands, the entire process that follows the arrest—remand, cognizance, chargesheet—cannot salvage the constitutional violation.
Extended to Protective Measures: The Court also linked the right to dignity under Article 21 to ensure that detainees or undertrials are treated humanely and not subjected to handcuffing or chaining absent extraordinary reasons validated by law.

3.3 Impact

The impact of this Judgment is both immediate and enduring in the criminal justice sphere:

Higher Standard for Police Procedure: Law enforcement agencies must ensure that grounds of arrest are furnished in a form and language comprehensible to the accused. The Court encourages officers to communicate these grounds in writing whenever possible to avoid disputes or ambiguity.
Benchmarks for Magistrates: Magistrates must now actively inquire about compliance with Article 22(1) when an accused person is first produced in court. This shift makes it a practical checkpoint during the remand process.
Human Rights Compliance: The Judgment reaffirms that handcuffing or chaining must be used only in the rarest of cases per law. Arbitrary or routine physical restraints to a hospital bed can result in both departmental action and judicial condemnation.
Rectifying Future Breaches: Many states will likely revisit their training manuals, standard operating procedures, and administrative guidelines for arrest and custodial procedures to ensure strict adherence with this newly clarified precedent.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Several constitutional and procedural provisions were central to this Judgment. Below are brief explanations of the key concepts:

Article 22(1) of the Constitution: This ensures that no person is arrested without immediate notification of the reasons. One must be provided sufficient information to challenge the arrest and seek bail or legal representation.
“Grounds of Arrest”: These are the primary factual and legal bases on which the person is arrested. Merely citing the FIR number or charges does not fulfill this requirement. Instead, the accused must understand the specific accusations or offenses alleged.
Illegal Arrest: An arrest made in contravention of constitutional safeguards (for example, if the person is never informed of the grounds) is deemed void, making any subsequent judicial remand suspect.
Handcuffing and Article 21: Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and courts have repeatedly held that handcuffing is a serious affront to human dignity unless justified by compelling circumstances.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Vihaan Kumar v. The State of Haryana underscores the inviolability of constitutional protections in criminal procedure, particularly the requirement under Article 22(1) to promptly inform the accused of the grounds of arrest. The Court has made it abundantly clear that any attempt to circumvent or delay this requirement will vitiate the arrest and require immediate release of the accused, even if a chargesheet has been filed or judicial remand orders issued thereafter.

Beyond strengthening procedural safeguards, the decision reiterates the importance of treating all individuals with dignity, including those in custody. Police authorities are thus called upon to strictly adhere to both the letter and spirit of the law to prevent violations of Articles 21 and 22. Overall, this Judgment serves as a reminder that fundamental rights form the bedrock of India’s criminal justice system, and violates them at peril of invalidating every subsequent action in the case.

End of Commentary