Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the petitioner’s son had been illegally arrested by the CID and was in unlawful detention, the division bench of J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan,JJ. having examined the grounds of arrest, the Court concluded that the requirements set out in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, had been duly met. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed it.
Background
In the present appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which dismissed his writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant alleged that his son was illegally arrested by the CID and unlawfully detained.
The appellant’s son was arrested on 21-04-2025 in connection with a case registered under Sections 420, 409 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
According to the case records, on 19-04-2025, the appellant’s son was arrayed as accused 1 through an entry in the case diary. He was subsequently arrested at approximately 6:00 PM at Hyderabad Airport. At the time of his arrest, the grounds of arrest were provided to him and were later served to his father, the appellant.
Following his arrest, he was transported to Vijayawada and produced before the jurisdictional magistrate. The police sought remand, which was granted by the Special Judge on the same day.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court, seeking a writ of habeas corpus. He contended that the arrest was inherently illegal, and the continued detention of his son violated Article 21 of the Constitution.
One of the primary grounds raised was that although the grounds of arrest were furnished, they were vague, lacking in material particulars, and amounted to a mere formality, thus rendering the arrest constitutionally infirm. It was further argued that the failure to meaningfully communicate the grounds of arrest was in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution, as well as Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’).
After considering the submissions, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has approached the Supreme Court by way of the present appeal.
Analysis and Decision
The Court carefully examined relevant provisions of the Constitution and the BNSS, alongside the written grounds of arrest that were furnished both to the appellant’s son at the time of his arrest and subsequently to the appellant, his father.
Relying on the precedent laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) , the Court reaffirmed several settled principles of law concerning the constitutional safeguards surrounding arrest. The key takeaways from the judgment are as follows:
a) The obligation to inform the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement.
b) Arrest results in the curtailment of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is essential that the arrestee clearly understands the reasons for such deprivation.
c) The mode of conveying the grounds of arrest must be meaningful and must serve the substantive purpose envisaged under Article 22(1).
d) Failure to communicate the grounds of arrest promptly amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1).
e) If this constitutional mandate is not met, the arrest is vitiated, and the continued custody of the person becomes unlawful.
f) If the police seek to prove compliance solely through a diary entry, the grounds of arrest must be explicitly recorded therein or in another supporting document. It is imperative that such grounds pre-exist before they are communicated.
g) Where an arrestee asserts that the grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden lies squarely on the police to prove adherence to Article 22(1).
h) The grounds of arrest should not only be conveyed to the arrestee but also to their family members or close relatives to ensure that timely legal and procedural steps may be taken to secure their release. Non-compliance with this may render the arrest illegal.
The Court proceeded to clarify an important aspect of its earlier ruling in Vihaan Kumar (supra). In that case, the issue centered around a complete failure on the part of the police to provide the grounds of arrest. The authorities sought to rely solely on an entry in the case diary, which recorded that the accused had been arrested after being informed of the grounds. However, in the present case, there is no dispute that the grounds of arrest were indeed supplied to the arrestee. The grievance raised is of a different nature, namely, that the grounds provided were not meaningful and lacked essential information necessary to understand the basis of the arrest.
In this appeal, therefore, the Court focused on determining whether the grounds of arrest provided to the appellant’s son at the time of his arrest were sufficiently clear and informative to give him a broad understanding of the accusations against him and the reasons for his detention.
Upon examining the grounds of arrest, the Court found it difficult to accept the contention that they were vague, meaningless, or merely formality. The materials on record did not support the argument that the grounds of arrest amounted to an eyewash.
The Court further referred to State of Bombay v. Atma Ram, 1951 SCC 43, where it was held that the true test for the adequacy of the communication of arrest grounds is whether the information provided is sufficient to enable the detained person to make an effective representation at the earliest opportunity.
Similarly, in Maganlal Jivabhai Patel, In re, 1950 SCC OnLine Bom 83 , it was observed that the only reasonable interpretation of Article 22(6) is that the detaining authority must disclose the factual basis on which it is satisfied that detention is necessary in the interest of state security, public order, or other specified grounds. The Court emphasised that the only permissible exception to disclosing these facts is if such disclosure would be against public interest. Failure to state any factual grounds would defeat the very purpose of Article 22(6).
The Court clarified, however, that in both the above cases, the individuals were detained under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act and the applicable constitutional safeguard was Article 22(5). In contrast, the present case concerns the arrest of the appellant’s son for specific cognizable offences, governed by Article 22(1), not Article 22(5). Nonetheless, both clauses mandate the communication of certain information to the person deprived of liberty.
Under Article 22(1), the grounds for arrest must be communicated to the arrested individual. Under Article 22(5), applicable to preventive detention, the grounds of detention must be communicated. The underlying objective remains the same—to empower the person in custody to respond to the deprivation of liberty effectively.
The Court reiterated the explanation given in Vihaan Kumar (supra) regarding the purpose of this safeguard. Once informed of the grounds of arrest, the detained individual can seek bail, challenge the arrest through a writ of habeas corpus, or begin preparing a legal defence. Accordingly, the Constitution mandates that the grounds for arrest be communicated as soon as possible.
Importantly, the Court clarified that for the purposes of Article 22(1), it is not necessary for the authorities to provide a detailed account of the alleged offence. However, the information conveyed must be adequate for the arrested person to understand the reasons for the arrest. The level of detail required should be broadly comparable to the framing of a charge for trial, sufficient to inform the accused of the substance of the allegations.
The Court further clarified the distinction between arrests made with and without a warrant in the context of the constitutional requirement to inform an arrestee of the grounds for arrest. It observed that where a person is arrested pursuant to a warrant, the warrant itself constitutes the grounds for arrest. In such cases, reading the warrant to the arrestee satisfies the requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
However, in cases of arrest without a warrant, the arresting officer must explicitly inform the person of the reasons for the arrest. If the arrest is made on the basis that the individual has committed an offence, it is not sufficient to merely state that an offence has been committed. The arrestee must be informed of the specific acts allegedly committed by him that constitute the offence, thereby giving him a clear understanding of the factual basis for the arrest.
The Court emphasised that merely stating the provision of law under which the arrest is made, without explaining the acts that attracted that provision, would not amount to meaningful communication of the grounds of arrest. The individual must be told of the precise conduct or actions that led to the invocation of the offence, so that he can exercise his legal rights appropriately and effectively.
The Court, after taking an overall view of the matter, particularly upon a careful examination of the grounds of arrest, concluded that the requirement laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) had been duly fulfilled in the present case.
Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed it.
The Court further clarified that it shall remain open to the arrested individual, who is presently in judicial custody, to apply for regular bail before the competent court. If any application for regular bail is already pending, it shall be taken up for hearing at the earliest and decided in accordance with law, keeping in view the well-settled principles governing the grant of bail.
[Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228, decided on 23-05-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice JB Pardiwala
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, Adv. Mr. Yashaswi Sk Chocksey, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra, Adv. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Suhail Ahmed, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
