For representative purposes
| Photo Credit: Getty Images
The story so far:
The Supreme Court recently, in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (September 2026), held that the investigating agency would require permission of the magistrate to re-arrest the accused after his previous arrest was held illegal for the non-supply of the grounds of arrest in writing. It also recommended departmental action for the negligent investigating officer (IO) and change of the IO in the case.
What governs the communication of grounds of arrest?
The genesis of informing the grounds of arrest to a person flows from the Constitutional safeguard provided in Article 21 that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Article 22(2) says that every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate, and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.
The Constitutional safeguard is incorporated in Section 50 of the CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS). Section 47 of BNSS casts a duty on the police officer to communicate the grounds of arrest to an accused person arrested without a warrant. However, neither Article 22(2) of the Constitution nor Section 47 of BNSS specifies the mode of communicating the grounds of arrest to an accused person.
How has the law evolved?
In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. (2023), the Supreme Court while dealing with a case of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) held that there was no valid reason as to why a written copy of the grounds of arrest could not be provided to the arrestee as a standard procedure without any exception. The court cited two reasons for it. First, in case the grounds of arrest are orally read out to an accused person, those orally stated facts could be disputed in a given case. Second, the accused person may seek legal counsel to avail bail. The court therefore held that furnishing a copy of written grounds of arrest to an accused was mandatory without exception.
This principle was reiterated by the court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (May 2024) while dealing with a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It held that communicating the grounds of arrest was not merely a procedural formality but a vital safeguard with the ultimate objective of enabling the arrested person to effectively consult legal aid and be prepared to raise objections in the remand hearing and apply for his/her bail. Also, any breach of Article 22(2) would vitiate the lawfulness of arrest and subsequent remand, and entitle the person to be set at liberty.
However, in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another (2025), the court observed that although the ideal mode of communication of grounds of arrest is to provide such grounds in writing, there is no such statutory requirement to do so.
What did the court rule in the Rajesh Mihir Shah case?
The Supreme Court in Rajesh Mihir Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025) held that the constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes, including offences under the IPC (now BNS). Second, the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands. Third, in cases where the arresting officer is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it needs to be done orally. The said grounds of arrest are to be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate. Fourth, in case of non-compliance, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal.
What are the consequences?
The court in the Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol (supra) case said that in case the IO still needs to re-arrest an accused for custodial interrogation during investigation, the IO has to file an application before the concerned magistrate for custody, stating the reasons.
The IO would also need to explain the reasons for non-supply of the grounds of arrest to the accused. However, the application could be filed only after furnishing the grounds of arrest to the accused. Also, the application must have the endorsement of the immediate superior authority. It is only after the receipt of such application that the magistrate shall decide the same expeditiously.
Second, the investigation of the case shall be handed over to another officer by the superior authority, and he shall also direct departmental enquiry for the serious lapse of not providing the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused.
Additionally, the High Court may direct payment of compensation as part of the public law remedy for the violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, with liberty to the accused to avail his remedy under the private civil law.
(R.K. Vij is a former IPS officer)
Published – October 15, 2026 08:30 am IST
