The Supreme Court on September 21 held that authorities must initiate a Police Arrest Departmental Inquiry when an officer arrests a person without furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing. The Court reiterated that failure to comply with Article 22(1) of the Constitution makes the arrest illegal.
A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar delivered the ruling. It held that an investigating agency cannot directly re-arrest a person whose initial arrest was declared illegal.
The agency must first provide the grounds of arrest in writing. It must then approach the concerned Magistrate and obtain permission for re-arrest.
On the administrative side, the officer who failed to provide the written grounds must seek an endorsement from a superior authority before seeking further custody.
Investigation Must Go to Another Officer
The Supreme Court directed the superior authority to assign further investigation to another officer. The authority must also order a departmental inquiry against the officer responsible for the constitutional violation.
If the inquiry records adverse findings, the department must take action against the officer. It must also make an entry in the officer’s service book.
The Court further directed that authorities send a copy of the judgment to the Directors General of Police in all States and Union Territories.
Arrest of Jaskaranjit Singh Declared Illegal
The Court issued these directions while examining the arrest of Jaskaranjit Singh. He is the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD)-affiliated in-charge of the Mullanpur Dakha constituency.
Authorities had arrested Singh in connection with allegations involving the sexual assault of a minor. The Supreme Court declared the arrest illegal because authorities had not furnished him with the grounds of arrest.
Singh approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed an order passed by the local Court. The local Court had declared his arrest illegal and ordered his immediate release.
Supreme Court Reiterates Article 22(1) Safeguards
While pronouncing the judgment, Justice Bhuyan said the appeal raised an important constitutional question. It concerned the consequences of breaches of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22.
The Bench considered Sri Darshan, Sonam Raghuvanshi and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025).
The Court noted that it delivered the Sri Darshan judgment before Mihir Rajesh Shah. Similarly, the arrest in Sonam Raghuvanshi took place before the Mihir Rajesh Shah ruling.
The Bench held that Mihir Rajesh Shah states the correct legal position and remains binding. It also said the ruling follows the Supreme Court’s consistent jurisprudence.
Written Grounds of Arrest Are Mandatory
The Court summarised the core principles governing Article 22(1). It held that authorities must provide the grounds of arrest in writing and in a language the accused understands.
They must furnish a copy of those grounds to every arrested person without exception.
The Court described this protection as both a fundamental and statutory right. Authorities must communicate the written grounds at the earliest.
Any breach of Article 22(1) affects the validity of the arrest and remand process.
The Court also held that a subsequent chargesheet or an order taking cognisance cannot validate such an arrest.
Article 22 Applies Across Statutes
The Supreme Court clarified that Article 22 applies across the spectrum of arrests. Its protection covers offences under the IPC as well as offences under special enactments.
Article 22 is not statute-specific or merely procedural. Instead, it provides a binding constitutional safeguard.
Therefore, an accused does not need to establish prejudice or demonstrable prejudice after authorities violate this constitutional protection.
The Bench also distinguished such release from bail. When authorities release an accused because the arrest violated Article 22(1), the person secures release from illegal and unconstitutional detention. The release does not amount to bail.
Procedure for Re-Arrest
The Court prescribed safeguards for investigating agencies seeking to re-arrest an accused released because of an Article 22(1) violation.
If the agency considers custodial interrogation necessary for further investigation, it must approach the concerned Magistrate. The application must explain the reasons for re-arrest and why further custody is necessary.
The application must also explain why authorities failed to provide the grounds of arrest initially. However, the agency can move the application only after furnishing those grounds to the accused.
The immediate senior authority must endorse the application. According to the Court, this requirement helps rule out foul play or collusion. It also alerts the senior authority to the constitutional violation and enables remedial action.
The Magistrate must decide the application expeditiously. Following Mihir Rajesh Shah, the Magistrate should preferably decide it within one week of submission while following the principles of natural justice.
Magistrate Must Assess Need for Re-Arrest
The Magistrate must examine whether bona fide reasons prevented authorities from furnishing the grounds of arrest initially. Authorities must have subsequently provided those grounds after the accused’s release.
The Magistrate must also independently determine whether re-arrest is necessary. Only after satisfying these requirements can the Magistrate permit the investigating agency to proceed with re-arrest.
At the administrative level, the superior authority must transfer the investigation to another officer. A Police Arrest Departmental Inquiry must also examine the serious lapse.
If that inquiry reaches an adverse finding, departmental action must follow. Authorities must also record an entry in the concerned officer’s service book.
Safeguards Also Apply to Article 22(2)
The Supreme Court held that authorities must follow the same procedure when they breach Article 22(2) and later seek custody of the accused.
Referring to the Khatri case, the Court recalled the constitutional requirement to produce an arrested person before a Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours. It said this constitutional mandate continues to remain firm.
Depending on the facts and circumstances, High Courts may direct payment of compensation as a public law remedy for an Article 22(2) violation. The accused may also pursue remedies under private civil law.
The Court concluded that authorities must strictly address constitutional violations regardless of the nature or gravity of the alleged offence.
It also referred to the three-Judge Bench decision in Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. The District Magistrate, Kamrup (1974). The decision emphasised the courts’ duty to ensure strict compliance with constitutionally or legally prescribed procedures when authorities deprive a citizen of personal liberty.
