New Delhi, Nov. 7 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing to every accused in all cases, including offences under the Indian Penal Code (now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), marking a significant expansion of the constitutional safeguard and ending the perception that such protection was limited only to special laws such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) or the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A bench of Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and justice AG Masih held that the obligation to inform a person why they are being arrested "is not a mere procedural formality but a mandatory constitutional safeguard" flowing from the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and mandated under Article 22(1). It underlined that an arrest carries an inherent stigma that "undermines a person's social dignity" and impacts not only the individual but also their family and social circle. "This court is of the opinion that to achieve the intended objective of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1).the grounds of arrest must be informed to the arrested person in each and every case without exception and the mode of the communication of such grounds must be in writing in the language he understands," the bench held. Rejecting the argument that the requirement of written grounds was confined to special statutes, the court said Article 22(1) "cannot be read in a restrictive manner" and applies equally to arrests under ordinary criminal law. "The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023). The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands," held the bench. The bench underscored that the intent and purpose of the constitutional mandate is to prepare the arrested person to defend himself. "If the provisions of Article 22(1) are read in a restrictive manner, its intended purpose of securing personal liberty would not be achieved rather curtailed and put to disuse. Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as maybe, it would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest illegal," declared the court. The ruling extends the requirement of written grounds of arrest from special statutes to every arrest under Indian criminal law, altering everyday policing practice and strengthening the protection against arbitrary detention. The court was dealing with legal issues that arose during the hearing of a petition filed by Mihir Shah, the accused in the July 2024 Worli BMW hit-and-run case, who argued that he was never supplied written grounds of his arrest. While the bench kept its ruling on Shah's plea reserved and clarified that it would not disturb the Bombay high court order upholding his arrest, it treated the case as an opportunity to settle the broader constitutional question. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Shah, while advocate Shri Singh assisted the court as amicus curiae. Notably, the judgment draws a clear timeline for compliance. If the police are unable to provide written grounds at the moment of arrest, for instance, in situations involving offences committed in flagrante delicto (clear and direct evidence of wrongdoing happening at that exact moment), the grounds may be orally conveyed initially, but must be supplied in writing "within a reasonable time" and "in no event later than two hours before production before the magistrate" for remand. Any person who is arrested has to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, according to Article 22(2). "Any shorter interval may render such preparation illusory," said the court, stressing that the arrested person must have a fair opportunity to consult counsel and oppose remand or seek bail. Failure to provide written grounds within this window, it held, will render the arrest and remand illegal, entitling the person to immediate release. The bench referenced earlier rulings in Pankaj Bansal (2023) under PMLA and Prabir Purkayastha (2024) under UAPA, where the Supreme Court had first insisted that the grounds of arrest must be supplied in writing. It noted that the fundamental rights in play are universal and not statute-specific. "The objective of the constitutional mandate would not be fulfilled by mere reading out the grounds. such an approach would be antithesis to the purpose of Article 22(1)," it observed. Calling the clarity "essential for consistency in criminal justice administration," the court said the procedure affirmed by it shall govern all arrests henceforth. The court directed its registry to circulate the judgment to all high courts and the chief secretaries of states and Union territories....