Introduction 

This landmark Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, addressed the critical issue of violation of fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court ruled that the arrest of Vihaan Kumar was illegal due to the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest, a mandatory constitutional safeguard. The judgment reaffirms the sacrosanct nature of Article 22(1), establishes the necessity of meaningful communication of grounds of arrest, and highlights the illegality of handcuffing an accused in a hospital, violating Article 21 of Indian Constitution. 

Facts of the Case 

• On 25th March, 2023, an FIR (No. 121/2023) was registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).  
• Vihaan Kumar was arrested on 10th June, 2024, at his office. 
• He was taken to DLF Police Station and produced before the Judicial Magistrate (in charge) at Gurgaon on 11th June, 2024, at 3:30 p.m.  
• The State claimed the arrest occurred at 6:00 p.m. on 10th June, 2024, asserting compliance with Article 22(2) of the Constitution. 
• The appellant alleged he was not informed of the grounds of arrest, violating Article 22(1) and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• He further claimed a violation of Article 22(2) and Section 57 of CrPC, as he was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.  
• The remand report and magistrate’s order dated June 11, 2024, did not mention the time of arrest, supporting the appellant’s claim. 
• Post-arrest, Vihaan Kumar was hospitalized at PGIMS, Rohtak, where he was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed, as evidenced by photographs.  
• The Medical Superintendent of PGIMS admitted this in an affidavit filed on October 24, 2024, following a Supreme Court notice issued on 4th October , 2024.  
• The officials responsible were suspended, and a departmental inquiry was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 23rd October, 2024. 
• Vihaan Kumar filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging the legality of his arrest due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 50 of CrPC.  
• The High Court, in its judgment dated 30th August, 2024, dismissed the petition, equating information about the arrest with communication of grounds of arrest and dismissing the appellant’s claims as bald allegations.  
• Aggrieved, Vihaan Kumar filed a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024 before the Supreme Court.  

Issues Involved 

• Violation of Article 22(1): Whether the failure to inform Vihaan Kumar of the grounds of arrest violated his fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.  
• Compliance with Article 22(2): Whether the appellant was produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, as mandated by Article 22(2) and Section 57 of CrPC.  
• Legality of Arrest: Whether non-compliance with Article 22(1) rendered the arrest and subsequent custody illegal.  
• Handcuffing in Hospital: Whether handcuffing and chaining the appellant to a hospital bed violated his right to dignity under Article 21.  
• Burden of Proof: Whether the burden to prove compliance with Article 22(1) lies with the arresting agency when non-compliance is alleged. 

Court’s Observations 

• Justice Abhay S. Oka’s Observations and Judgment:  
  • Mandatory Nature of Article 22(1): Emphasized that informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1), non-compliance with which vitiates the arrest and violates Article 21’s guarantee of personal liberty.  
  • Meaningful Communication: Held that grounds of arrest must be communicated effectively in a language the arrestee understands, ensuring the constitutional safeguard’s purpose is served (Paragraphs 14, 21).  
  • Burden on Police: Ruled that when an arrestee alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden lies on the police to prove compliance, and vague diary entries are insufficient without contemporaneous records of the grounds (Paragraphs 18, 27).  
  • Invalidity of Subsequent Actions: Clarified that filing a chargesheet or passing remand orders does not validate an unconstitutional arrest, as the violation of Article 22(1) renders the arrest and subsequent custody illegal (Paragraphs 16, 21).  
  • Handcuffing Violation: Condemned the act of handcuffing and chaining the appellant to a hospital bed as a violation of the right to dignity under Article 21, directing the State to issue guidelines to prevent such acts (Paragraphs 29, 33).  
  • High Court’s Error: Criticized the High Court for equating information about the arrest with grounds of arrest and failing to address the violation of Article 22(1), calling its dismissal of the appellant’s claims as “bald” uncalled for (Paragraphs 30, 31).  
  • Suggested Practice: While Article 22(1) does not mandate written grounds, recommended providing grounds in writing to avoid disputes and ensure compliance, though acknowledged this may not always be practicable (Paragraph 15). 
• Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh’s Observations:  
  • Concurrence and Supplement: Concurred with Justice Oka’s analysis, emphasizing the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) and its incorporation in Section 50 of CrPC and Section 19 of the PMLA (Paragraph 1, Page 37).  
  • Purpose of Communication: Highlighted that communicating grounds of arrest to the arrestee and their nominated persons (under Section 50A of CrPC) enables prompt legal action to secure release, reinforcing the right to liberty under Article 21 (Paragraphs 2, 3, Page 38).  
  • Constitutional Mandate: Reaffirmed that non-compliance with the requirement to communicate grounds in writing renders the arrest illegal, making the safeguard meaningful and effective (Paragraph 3, Page 39). 

Conclusion 

This landmark judgment establishes a robust framework for protecting fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, declared Vihaan Kumar’s arrest illegal due to the failure to communicate grounds of arrest, setting a precedent that non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and subsequent custody. The Court’s directive to the State of Haryana to issue guidelines against handcuffing in hospitals underscores the protection of dignity under Article 21. By mandating that courts verify compliance with Article 22(1) during remand and placing the burden on the police to prove compliance, the judgment reinforces constitutional safeguards and provides clear judicial guidelines for future cases involving arrests without warrants.