Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court held that when a person is arrested pursuant to a warrant, the obligation to separately communicate the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution does not arise, as the warrant itself constitutes the grounds for the arrest to be supplied to the arrestee under Article 22(1).

“If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest.”, the court observed.

The Court clarified that when an arrest warrant is issued, it presupposes judicial scrutiny of the grounds for arrest as it contains the details about the offence charged, the reason for arrest (e.g., evasion of trial, threat to evidence/witnesses), and the identity of the accused. Therefore, a separate "grounds" document isn't required as the act of reading the warrant aloud fulfills the constitutional obligation to inform the arrestee of the reasons.

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard an appeal in a case where the appellant challenged the alleged illegal arrest of his son.

After a setback from the trial court and High Court, the appellant moved the Supreme Court arguing that the arrest was illegal in the absence of compliance of the mandatory provision of Article 22(1) of the constitution.

Affirming the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala referring to the recent case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169 stated that the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution arises only when there's a warrantless arrest, and not when arrest happens on warrant.

“If he is arrested without a warrant, he must be told why he has been arrested. If he is arrested for committing an offence, he must be told that he has committed a certain offence for which he would be placed on trial. In order to inform him that he has committed a certain offence, he must be told of the acts done by him which amounts to the offence. He must be informed of the precise acts done by him for which he would be tried; informing him merely of the law applicable to such acts would not be enough.”, the court observed.

In Vihaan Kumar, the Court speaking through Justice Abhay S Oka, stated:

“Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as 22 may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.”

Dismissing the appeal, the Court laid down following principles of law in conformity with the decision of Vihaan Kumar:

a) The requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional condition.

b) Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested.

c) The mode of conveying the information of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful so as to serve the true object underlying Article 22(1).

d) If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1).

e) On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing the grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest would stand vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.

f) If the police want to prove communication of the grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in the diary entry or any other document. The grounds of arrest must exist before the same are informed.

g) When an arrestee pleads before a court that the grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police authorities.

h) The grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so that necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of the person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.

Case Title: KASIREDDY UPENDER REDDY Versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 628

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shriharsha Peechara, Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, AOR Mr. Shreevardhan Dhoot, Adv. Mr. M. Bala Krishna, Adv. Mr. T. Vijaybhaskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Yash Gupta, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Serena Jethmalani, Adv. Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Mugdha Pande, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Thaledi, Adv. Mr. Yashaswi SK Chocksey, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR

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.