Supreme Court Asserts Fundamental Right to Know Reasons for Arrest
In a landmark ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court emphasized that no individual can be arrested without being informed of the reason, declaring this disclosure as a fundamental right of the accused. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, highlighted that any violation of this right would automatically entitle the accused to bail, even in cases where stringent bail conditions are prescribed by law.
The court ruled that failing to inform the accused of the grounds of arrest renders the arrest invalid. “If the arrest is found to be vitiated, the person cannot remain in custody for even a second,” the judgment stated.
The bench outlined a series of guidelines and directives that law enforcement agencies and courts across the country must adhere to when dealing with arrests deemed unconstitutional.
Legal Mandates and Constitutional Protections
The judgment underscored that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is enshrined in Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 22 (protection against arbitrary arrest and detention) of the Constitution. Additionally, provisions under Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and its equivalent in newer legislation, Section 48 of the BNSS, mandate that the grounds of arrest be communicated.
The bench referred to a 1962 precedent set by a constitutional bench in the case of Harikisan vs the State of Maharashtra, which held that individuals have a constitutional right to know the reasons for their arrest. Justice Oka, authoring the judgment, remarked: “Failure to inform the accused of the grounds of arrest amounts to a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1). It also infringes upon their liberty, as no one can be deprived of their freedom except through procedures established by law under Article 21.”
Directives Issued by the Supreme Court
The court issued specific guidelines to ensure compliance with constitutional provisions regarding arrests:
- Mandatory Disclosure: Informing an arrested individual of the grounds of arrest is a constitutional requirement under Article 22(1).
- Clear Communication: The information must be conveyed in a language the accused understands.
- Burden of Proof: If the accused alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), it is the responsibility of the investigating officer or agency to prove adherence to this requirement.
- Violation Consequences: Non-compliance with Articles 21 and 22(1) constitutes a violation of fundamental rights, invalidating any remand orders passed by a criminal court. However, this will not impact the investigation, chargesheet, or trial.
- Judicial Oversight: Judicial magistrates must verify compliance with Article 22(1) and other legal safeguards when an accused is presented for remand.
- Immediate Release: If a violation of Article 22(1) is established, courts are obligated to order the accused’s immediate release, even in cases where bail conditions are otherwise restrictive.
Case of Vihaan Kumar
The bench directed the Haryana government to release Vihaan Kumar, who had been accused of cheating and other offenses. It held that his arrest was unconstitutional, as he was not informed of the grounds for his detention.
Expressing deep concern, the court condemned the inhumane treatment of Kumar, who had been handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed after his arrest, describing this as a blatant violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21.
While ordering Kumar’s release, the bench clarified that this finding of a vitiated arrest would not impact the pending case or the chargesheet filed against him.
Recommendations for Haryana Police
The court directed the Haryana government to ensure that its police force adheres strictly to Article 22 of the Constitution and refrain from handcuffing or chaining accused individuals to hospital beds. The bench warned that such practices are unacceptable and must not be repeated.
This judgment reinforces the constitutional protections afforded to individuals and serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to uphold the rights and dignity of those they arrest.