Context:

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the requirement of informing grounds of arrest to an accused was not a "formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement”.

More on the news: 

• The SC delivered the judgment after hearing the Appeal filed by Vihaan Kumar against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision rejecting his Writ Petition alleging illegal arrest and seeking CCTV footage.
• The SC bench also expressed strong disapproval of chaining and handcuffing the accused in the hospital which infringes on his right to live with dignity (guaranteed by Article 21).

Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Ruling:

Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible.

• The failure to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest renders the arrest illegal.

The court emphasized that Article 22 is a part of Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution), ensuring the protection of an individual’s liberty.

If the grounds of arrest are not communicated promptly, it constitutes a violation of the arrestee’s fundamental right to liberty under Article 21.

The grounds of arrest should also be communicated to the arrested person’s relatives or nominated persons so they can take necessary steps to secure release through legal processes, such as engaging lawyers.

The court referred to the Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India case, where it was suggested that written communication of the grounds of arrest is an ideal practice.

Impacts of the Judgement:

Impact on Investigation and Trial:

• The court clarified that non-compliance with Article 22(1) does not affect the investigation, charge sheet, or trial process, even though the arrest is deemed illegal.
• The arrest may be rendered illegal, but the investigation or trial proceedings can continue if separate constitutional requirements are met.

Court’s Duty Upon Violation of Article 22(1):

• If the violation of Article 22(1) is proven, the court must immediately order the release of the arrested person, even if statutory restrictions on bail apply.
• The breach of constitutional rights takes precedence, allowing for bail to be granted despite restrictions.

Burden of Proof on Investigating Officer:

• The burden of proving compliance with Article 22(1) lies with the Investigating Officer/Agency.
• If the arrested person alleges non-compliance, the police must provide evidence to demonstrate that the grounds were communicated properly.

Significance: 

• The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the significance of Article 22(1) in protecting the liberty of individuals and ensuring that arrests are carried out in accordance with due process. 
• Theuling also emphasised that compliance with this provision is essential to uphold the constitutional rights of individuals and safeguard their right to life and liberty under Article 21.