Supreme Court: Police must give written grounds for arrest, seek magistrate’s permission for re-arrest
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK New Delhi, September 21: The Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer must furnish the grounds of…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
New Delhi, September 21: The Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer must furnish the grounds of arrest in writing to an accused and that any attempt to re-arrest a person whose initial arrest was declared illegal must be preceded by permission from the concerned Magistrate.
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that failure to provide written grounds of arrest violates the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) and renders the arrest illegal. The Court also directed that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the police officer responsible for such a violation.
The Court reiterated that the grounds of arrest must be provided in writing and in a language understood by the accused, with a copy furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and at the earliest.
It held that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental and statutory right. Any violation of this safeguard vitiates the arrest and remand process. A subsequent chargesheet or order taking cognisance cannot validate an arrest that was unconstitutional at the outset.
The Bench further clarified that Article 22 applies across the spectrum of criminal offences, including those under special enactments, and is not merely a procedural formality. A person released because of violation of Article 22(1) is released from illegal and unconstitutional detention, rather than being released on bail.
Magistrate’s permission essential for re-arrest
The Supreme Court laid down a specific procedure for cases where the investigating agency believes that custodial interrogation is necessary after an accused has been released because the initial arrest violated Article 22(1).
The agency must file an application before the concerned Magistrate explaining the reasons for seeking re-arrest and the need for custodial interrogation. The application must also explain why the grounds of arrest were not furnished initially.
However, such an application can be moved only after the grounds of arrest have been furnished to the accused.
The application must carry the endorsement of the immediate senior authority to guard against foul play or collusion. The Magistrate is required to consider the application expeditiously, preferably within a week, while following the principles of natural justice.
Further investigation by another officer
The Court also put in place administrative safeguards against repetition of the violation.
Once a superior authority receives an application seeking custody of an accused released because of an Article 22(1) violation, the investigation must be handed over to another officer. The superior authority must also direct a departmental inquiry against the officer responsible for failing to furnish the grounds of arrest.
If the inquiry results in adverse findings, departmental action should follow, along with an entry in the concerned officer’s service book.
Judgment arose from Punjab case
The Supreme Court issued the directions while declaring the arrest of Jaskaranjit Singh, affiliated with the Shiromani Akali Dal, illegal in a case involving allegations of sexual assault of a minor.
Singh had approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed a local court’s order that had declared his arrest illegal and directed his release.
Court relies on earlier constitutional ruling
In its judgment, the Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025) as laying down the applicable legal position on furnishing written grounds of arrest. The Court also considered earlier decisions and reiterated that the constitutional safeguard cannot be diluted as a mere procedural requirement.
The Bench emphasised that constitutional protections cannot be compromised regardless of the nature or gravity of the alleged offence. It reiterated that personal liberty can be curtailed only in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and law.
The Supreme Court has directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Directors General of Police of all States and Union Territories for compliance.
