The Supreme Court on Monday directed that departmental proceedings be initiated against police officers who fail to furnish written grounds of arrest to an accused, holding that such a lapse violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(1).

 

The Article says no arrested person can be detained in custody without being informed.

 

A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar said an arrest made without communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is unconstitutional.

 

The Court also laid down safeguards governing any subsequent attempt by the investigating agency to re-arrest the accused.

 

The ruling came in a case concerning the arrest of Shiromani Akali Dal leader Jaskaranjit Singh in connection with allegations of sexual assault of a minor.

  

The Court held his arrest illegal after finding that the grounds of arrest had not been supplied to him.

 

The Bench said that if an accused is released because the initial arrest violated Article 22(1), the investigating agency cannot simply arrest him again on its own.

 

It must first furnish the grounds of arrest and approach the jurisdictional magistrate seeking custody, explaining both the need for re-arrest and why the grounds were not supplied initially.

 

The application must carry the endorsement of the investigating officer’s immediate superior. The magistrate must then decide the request expeditiously, preferably within a week, after following the principles of natural justice.

 

The Court said the power to re-arrest cannot remain with the same authority that committed the constitutional violation.

 

On the administrative side, the superior police officer receiving such a request must assign further investigation to another officer and order a departmental inquiry against the officer responsible for the lapse.

 

If the inquiry finds the officer at fault, departmental action must follow and the adverse finding must be recorded in the officer’s service record.

 

The Court directed that a copy of its judgment be circulated to the directors general of police of all states and Union Territories.

 

It also clarified that the subsequent filing of a chargesheet or an order taking cognisance of the offence cannot cure an illegal arrest.

 

The Bench said the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest applies irrespective of the offence or the statute under which the arrest is made. It is a constitutional safeguard and not a procedural formality.

 

An accused released following a violation of Article 22(1) is not being granted bail, the Court said, but is being released from unconstitutional detention. Consequently, questions of prejudice arising from the failure to furnish the grounds do not arise.

 

The judgment also relied on the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah v State of Maharashtra, which it described as laying down the correct legal position on the furnishing of written grounds of arrest.

 

The Bench noted that judgments concerning earlier arrests, including those involving actor Darshan and Sonam Raghuvanshi, pre-dated Mihir Rajesh Shah.

 

The Court further said that the grounds of arrest must be provided in writing, in a language understood by the accused, and supplied at the earliest opportunity. The requirement applies across criminal laws, including offences under special statutes.

 

The Bench stressed that constitutional safeguards cannot be diluted based on the seriousness of the allegations. It reiterated that where the Constitution prescribes a procedure for curtailing personal liberty, the procedure must be strictly followed.

 

The Court also noted that High Courts may, depending on the facts, award compensation as a public law remedy for violations of Article 22(2), without affecting the accused’s right to pursue remedies under civil law.