Supreme Court Mandates Written Grounds of Arrest: A Landmark Protection of Personal Liberty

Case title: Mihir Rajesh Shah Versus State of Maharashtra and Another.

Introduction

In a significant decision emphasizing the constitutional protections of personal freedom, the Supreme Court of India has determined that not providing the written grounds of arrest in a language comprehensible to the arrestee makes the arrest and ensuing remand unlawful.

The ruling, issued by a bench including Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, greatly broadens the procedural safeguards previously limited to special legislations such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), extending its relevance to all crimes under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Case Background

The decision stems from the detention of a petitioner connected to a prominent hit-and-run incident in Mumbai. The Bombay High Court recognized procedural irregularities in his arrest but declined to deem it unlawful, referencing the seriousness of the crime and the petitioner’s purported avoidance of custody.

The supreme court reviewed if the right to know the reasons for arrest, a key protection under Article 22(1), necessitates written notification in every instance, and the legal implications that result from failure to comply.

Constitutional Mandate under Articles 21 and 22

The Court clearly indicated that informing the accused of arrest reasons in a language they do not comprehend does not meet the constitutional requirement outlined in Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which ensures that every arrested individual has the right to know the basis for their arrest.

The panel noted:

"Simply stating the reasons in a language unknown to the arrested individual does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of Article 22." Not providing these reasons in a language comprehensible to the detained individual makes the constitutional protections meaningless and violates the individual's personal liberty, as ensured by Articles 21 and 22.

Highlighting the essence of due process, the Court remarked that the aim of this requirement is not merely procedural but practical; it strives to guarantee that the arrestee understands the grounds of the accusations and can assert the right to legal representation, contest detention, or request bail.

Written Communication Is Mandatory: Ensuring Written Grounds of Arrest

The Court made clear that simply stating the reasons for arrest or offering verbal explanations is inadequate. The reasons must be provided in writing and in a language the arrestee comprehends, guaranteeing clear communication and openness.

The ruling indicated:

"The method of communication should fulfill the objective of the constitutional protection." Simply stating the reasons would contradict Article 22(1). It is not harmful to present the reasons for arrest in writing in a language understood by the arrestee. This would not only meet the constitutional purpose but also assist the investigating agency in demonstrating compliance during legal examination.

The Court stated that this method guarantees accountability and verifiability, safeguarding both individual rights and the integrity of the investigative process.

Supreme Court’s Findings: Arrest Declared Illegal

The Court, in a ruling penned by Justice Masih, decided in favor of the petitioner, stating that his arrest was unlawful and unconstitutional. 

It ruled that notifying an arrestee of the reasons for their arrest is a “fundamental, non-derogable right”, a crucial element of the right to life and personal liberty as stated in Article 21.

The Court additionally noted: 

“This is not just a simple procedure.” There is a need to allow the detained individual to comprehend the charges, obtain legal counsel, contest the arrest or detention, and make a request for bail. Lacking this comprehension, the right to freedom becomes empty.

The ruling, therefore, upholds the procedural integrity of arrest as a constitutional act rather than just an administrative measure in an investigation.

Wider Legal Implications

By broadening this mandate to encompass all criminal offences in addition to special statutes such as UAPA and PMLA, the Court has substantially redefined the procedural rights of individuals under arrest within the criminal justice system.

This decision bolsters the foundation of Article 22(1) and provides essential clarity to arrest procedures, urging law enforcement and investigative bodies to utilize methods that adhere to linguistic and procedural standards during arrests.

Legal specialists indicate that the ruling is expected to prompt changes in arrest paperwork, officer training, and translations of arrest documents to comply with constitutional requirements. It establishes a benchmark for judicial examination of procedural errors in arrest and remand procedures.

Lawttorney’s Perspective: Procedural Fairness as the Core of Justice

At Lawttorney, this decision is viewed as a pivotal moment for procedural justice in India, one that prioritizes communication and understanding at the core of personal freedom.

In a society that is becoming more multilingual and diverse, guaranteeing that an accused genuinely comprehends the reasons for their arrest is not only a legal obligation but also a moral necessity. This ruling emphasizes that the due process should be clear, not merely representative.

From a legal and technological viewpoint, Lawttorney promotes the incorporation of legal-tech solutions that assist investigative agencies in automatically translating and producing arrest documents in various languages to adhere to constitutional protections, a move towards transparent, rights-affording law enforcement.

Way forward

The judgment of the Supreme Court represents a significant confirmation of individual freedom and constitutional due process. By stipulating that written grounds of arrest must be provided in writing and in a language comprehensible to the arrestee, the Court has connected procedural adherence with substantive justice.

This choice not only strengthens accountability in law enforcement but also guarantees that the Constitution’s assurance of freedom is significant, inclusive, and understandable to every citizen in their native language.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now