In a landmark judgment delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 and connected matters, the Honourable Supreme Court of India addressed the constitutional and procedural obligations surrounding the communication of grounds of arrest. The appeals arose from a tragic incident involving a fatal hit-and-run in Mumbai, allegedly perpetrated by Mihir Rajesh Shah, leading to charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS 2023) and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The appellant challenged the legality of his arrest on the ground that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest in writing, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023), formerly Section 50 of the CrPC.

Legal Questions Framed
The Supreme Court considered two pivotal questions:

1. Whether furnishing written grounds of arrest is mandatory in all cases, including those under BNS 2023.

2. Whether failure to furnish such grounds in writing vitiates the arrest, especially in exigent circumstances.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework
The Court revisited the foundational principles of personal liberty under:

• Article 21: Protection against deprivation of life or liberty except by procedure established by law.

• Article 22(1): Mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest “as soon as may be.

• Section 47 of BNSS 2023: Requires police officers to communicate full particulars of the offence or grounds of arrest forthwith.

• Section 48 of BNSS 2023: Extends this obligation to informing a relative or nominated person of the arrestee.

Judicial Reasoning and Precedents
The appellant relied on three key Supreme Court decisions:

• Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024): Held that written communication of grounds of arrest is essential under Article 22(1) and PMLA.

• Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024): Reiterated the necessity of written grounds under UAPA.

• Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025): Clarified that while written communication is ideal, it is not mandatory in every case under general law.

The Court acknowledged that special statutes like PMLA and UAPA require written grounds due to their stringent bail conditions and procedural safeguards. However, for general offences under BNS 2023, the Court held that:

• The mode of communication (oral or written) is not explicitly mandated by BNSS 2023.

• Timely and meaningful communication is essential to uphold Article 22(1), especially before remand hearings.

• Written communication is preferable to avoid factual disputes and ensure effective legal representation.

Role of Amicus Curiae
The Court-appointed Amicus Curiae emphasised that:

• Grounds of arrest must be communicated in all cases, regardless of the statute. • Written communication is not mandatory under BNSS 2023, but is advisable.

• The failure to inform grounds may not automatically vitiate the entire investigation unless prejudice is shown.

To sum up in short for students of law
Article 22(1) requires meaningful communication of arrest grounds

Section 47 BNSS

Special Statutes

General Offences

No mandate for written format, but must be timely and clear. Written grounds are mandatory under PMLA, UAPA
Written grounds are ideal but not compulsory

Remand Safeguards Grounds must be communicated before remand to enable legal

defence Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment harmonises constitutional safeguards with practical exigencies. While reaffirming the importance of informing arrestees of the grounds of arrest, it stops short of mandating a written format in all cases under general law. This nuanced approach balances procedural rigor with investigative realities, reinforcing the primacy of Article 22(1) while allowing flexibility under BNSS 2023.