Supreme Court Declares Arrest & Remand Illegal Without Written Grounds: A Landmark Step for Personal Liberty

 Supreme Court Declares Arrest & Remand Illegal Without Written Grounds: A Landmark Step for Personal Liberty

By Advocate Amarjeet Singh Panghal for Public Rights Action Network (PRAN) Blog

In a significant reaffirmation of personal liberty, the Supreme Court of India has held that every arrested person must be supplied written grounds of arrest, and failure to do so renders both the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
This ruling comes in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025, decided on 6 November 2025.

The judgment strengthens constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22(1) and standardises arrest procedures across India.

✅ Key Findings of the Supreme Court

1. Written grounds of arrest are a constitutional mandate

The Court held that Article 22(1) imposes a non-negotiable obligation on the police to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest in writing.
This is essential for enabling legal defence, bail applications, and challenging the legality of custody.

📌 Judgment Reference: Pages 12–13 of PDF (para 15–17).

2. Written grounds must be understood by the accused

The Court emphasised that the grounds must be supplied in a language known to the accused, ensuring actual comprehension rather than mere procedural compliance.

📌 Reference: Page 15 of PDF.

3. Oral intimation is allowed only in genuine emergencies

In exceptional situations (e.g., crime committed in the presence of police), initial oral communication is permissible. However, this does not dilute the mandatory requirement of supplying written grounds without delay.

4. Written grounds must be supplied at least two hours before remand

This is a crucial clarification introduced by the Court. Police must provide the written grounds well before producing the accused before the Magistrate. The Court notes that:

“A copy of the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee at least two hours prior to the production before the Magistrate.”

This ensures the accused can meaningfully oppose remand.

📌 Judgment Reference: Pages 17–18 of PDF.

5. Arrest and remand without written grounds = illegal

Non-compliance leads to:

·       Illegal arrest, and

·       Vitiated remand order

In such cases, the accused is entitled to immediate release.

📌 Judgment Reference: Pages 19–20 of PDF.

✅ Why This Judgment Matters

A. Strengthens personal liberty

The Court reiterates that liberty cannot be sacrificed for administrative convenience. Written grounds prevent arbitrary or mechanical arrests.

B. Uniform procedure across all laws

The ruling applies to all offences — IPC/BNS, CrPC/BNSA, and special laws such as PMLA, NDPS, UAPA, Companies Act, GST, etc.

C. Empowers accused and enhances transparency

Written grounds enable:

·       Effective access to legal counsel

·       Proper bail applications

·       Challenges to illegal custody

·       Reduction in abuse of police powers

D. Reinforces earlier due-process jurisprudence

The Court builds on earlier safeguards laid down in:

·       D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997)

·       Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014)

✅ Implications for Legal Practice, Police, and Public Advocacy

For lawyers:

This becomes a powerful tool to challenge illegal arrests and mechanical remand orders.

For police and enforcement agencies:

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) must be updated immediately.
All arrest memos must include:

·       Written grounds,

·       Signature of accused,

·       Time of service, and

·       Copy to family/legal representative.

For civil society:

This ruling must be incorporated into training modules on constitutional rights, police procedures, and due process. Legal awareness sessions and consumer rights advocacy can now integrate the 2-hour rule as a mandatory component of lawful detention.

✅ Conclusion

The Supreme Court has made it clear that arbitrary arrest has no place in a constitutional democracy. By mandating written grounds of arrest and setting a strict two-hour rule before remand, the Court has fortified the procedural safeguards that protect personal liberty.

This judgment is a major step toward ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability in India’s criminal justice system.

---

✅ References

1.      Supreme Court of India – Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025, Judgment dated 06.11.2025.
PDF: https://www.livelaw.in/pdf-upload/5632120242025-11-06-629588.pdf

2.     Constitution of India — Articles 21 & 22.

3.     D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.

4.     Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

5.     LiveLaw summary of the judgment.

✅ About Public Rights Action Network (PRAN)

Public Rights Action Network (PRAN) is a public-interest legal initiative dedicated to consumer rights, public health justice, road safety, gender justice, and democratic governance in India. PRAN works through legal research, litigation support, policy analysis, community capacity-building, and rights-based advocacy.

Contact PRAN
📧 publicrightaction@gmail.com
🌐 https://publicrightaction.blogspot.com
📍 Based in Delhi NCR, India

---

✅ Disclaimer

This article is intended for information and public awareness. It is not legal advice. Readers should consult the official judgment and seek professional legal counsel for case-specific matters. PRAN bears no responsibility for decisions made based on this article.

 #SupremeCourtOfIndia #ArrestLaw #DueProcess #PersonalLiberty #Article21 #Article22 #LegalRights #CriminalJusticeReform #RuleOfLaw #HumanRightsIndia #JusticeForAll

#LegalAwareness #RightsBasedApproach #AccessToJustice #AccountabilityMatters
#GoodGovernance #LawAndPolicy