Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Monday held that an arrest made without furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution and directed that the police officer responsible for such a breach face a departmental inquiry.
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar also laid down safeguards for re-arresting a person whose initial arrest has been declared illegal for non-compliance with the constitutional requirement.
The judgment came in Jaskaran Jeet Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 4234/2026. Singh, a Shiromani Akali Dal-affiliated in-charge of the Mullanpur Dakha constituency, had been arrested in connection with allegations involving sexual assault of a minor.
The Court held that the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing, in a language understood by the accused, at the earliest and as a matter of course without exception.
Failure to comply with the requirement renders the arrest unconstitutional and entitles the arrested person to immediate release, the Bench said. It added that a subsequent filing of a chargesheet or an order taking cognisance of the offence cannot validate an arrest that was illegal from the outset.
The requirement under Article 22(1), the Court said, applies to arrests made under both the Indian Penal Code and special enactments and is not merely a procedural safeguard.
“Such a fundamental right being sacrosanct can’t be breached under any situation,” the Court observed, adding that any breach would entail the immediate release of the arrested person because the detention would be unconstitutional.
The Court also prescribed the procedure to be followed if an investigating agency seeks to re-arrest a person who has been released because the initial arrest violated Article 22(1).
If custodial interrogation is considered necessary for further investigation, the agency must approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with an application setting out the reasons for the proposed re-arrest and the need for custody. The application must also explain why the grounds of arrest were not furnished initially.
However, the application can be filed only after the grounds of arrest have been furnished to the accused. It must also carry the endorsement of the immediate superior authority.
The Bench said the requirement was intended to ensure that the power to re-arrest does not remain with the same authority that had violated the accused’s constitutional right.
The Magistrate must decide such an application expeditiously, preferably within a week, while adhering to the principles of natural justice. If satisfied that there were bona fide reasons for the initial failure to furnish the grounds and that re-arrest was necessary, the Magistrate could permit the investigating agency to take the accused into custody again.
The Court also directed that the investigation be transferred to another officer when a superior authority receives an application seeking further custody of an accused released following an Article 22(1) violation.
The superior authority must also order a departmental inquiry against the police officer responsible for the lapse. If the inquiry results in adverse findings, departmental action should follow and the outcome should be entered in the officer’s service book.
The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Directors General of Police of all States and Union Territories.
The Court was considering Singh’s appeal after a local court had declared his arrest illegal and ordered his release on the ground that the grounds of arrest had not been furnished to him. The Punjab and Haryana High Court subsequently stayed that order, following which the matter reached the Supreme Court.
Justice Bhuyan, who authored the judgment, referred to the Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra while determining the legal position governing re-arrest following an unconstitutional arrest.
The Bench observed that the judgments in Sri Darshan and Sonam Raghuvanshi had been delivered before Mihir Rajesh Shah. It held that the latter judgment correctly sets out the law applicable to the issue.
The Court also reiterated that the constitutional safeguards governing personal liberty cannot be diluted depending on the nature or gravity of the alleged offence.
Referring to earlier decisions, including Khatri and Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. The District Magistrate, Kamrup (1974), the Bench stressed that constitutional requirements governing deprivation of personal liberty must be strictly followed.
Depending on the facts and circumstances, High Courts may also direct payment of compensation as a public law remedy for violation of Article 22(2), the Court said, while leaving the accused free to pursue remedies under civil law.