The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Vihan Kumar v. State of Haryana, focusing on the critical aspects of arrest procedures, constitutional safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution of India, and the duties of both the police and the magistrate in ensuring compliance with these safeguards. The judgment emphasises the importance of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest, the burden of proof on the police to demonstrate compliance, and the consequences of non-compliance, including the invalidation of the arrest.

Key Principles Established in Vihan Kumar v. State of Haryana

The Supreme Court in Vihan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) 5 SCC 799, laid down several crucial principles regarding arrest procedures and the protection of the rights of the arrested person. These principles are rooted in Article 22 of the Constitution of India and aim to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in the process of arrest.

1. Incorporation of Grounds of Arrest with Details

The Court emphasized the necessity of incorporating the grounds of arrest with sufficient details in the diary entry or any other relevant document maintained by the police. This requirement ensures that there is a clear record of the reasons for the arrest, preventing arbitrary or mala fide arrests. The details should be comprehensive enough to allow the arrestee to understand the basis for their arrest and to effectively challenge it if necessary.

2. Burden of Proof on the Police

The judgment explicitly places the burden of proof on the police to demonstrate that they have complied with the procedural safeguards outlined in Article 22 and other relevant laws. This means that the police must affirmatively show that the arrestee was informed of the grounds of arrest, that the arrest was made in accordance with the law, and that all other necessary procedures were followed. This principle is crucial in protecting the rights of the arrestee, as it prevents the police from relying on vague or unsubstantiated claims of compliance.

3. Duty of the Magistrate

The Court held that it is the duty of the magistrate to ascertain whether there has been compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution. This includes verifying that the arrestee was informed of the grounds of arrest in a language that they understand. The magistrate plays a critical role in safeguarding the rights of the arrestee, and this duty requires them to actively inquire into the circumstances of the arrest and ensure that all legal requirements have been met.

4. Compliance with Section 41(1)(ba) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [Corresponding to Section 41(1)(ba) of the CrPC]

The judgment implicitly refers to the requirements of Section 41(1)(ba) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 41(1)(ba) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section mandates that the police officer must be satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent the person from committing any further offence, or for proper investigation of the offence, or to prevent the person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner, or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer, or as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the officer records the reasons for such satisfaction. The court emphasizes the importance of adhering to these conditions to ensure that arrests are not made arbitrarily.

5. Communication of Arrest

The judgment highlights that communication of the arrest should not be limited to only the wife and relatives of the arrestee. A broader communication network should be established to ensure that the arrestee has access to legal representation and support. Limiting communication to only a few individuals constitutes non-compliance with the principles of fairness and due process.

6. Mentioning Grounds of Arrest in Remand Report

The Court held that merely mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report does not constitute sufficient compliance with Article 22(1). The arrestee must be informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of the arrest, and this information must be conveyed in a clear and understandable manner. The remand report serves a different purpose and cannot substitute for the initial communication of the grounds of arrest.

7. Right to be Informed

The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows directly from Article 22(1) of the Constitution. This is a fundamental right that cannot be curtailed or diluted. The arrestee must be informed of the reasons for their arrest in a language that they understand, and this information must be provided promptly and clearly.

8. Grounds of Detention

Article 22(5) mandates that the grounds of detention must be communicated to the detainee. This provision ensures that the detainee is aware of the reasons for their detention and has an opportunity to make a representation against it. The grounds must be communicated in a clear and understandable manner, and any ambiguity or vagueness will be viewed as a violation of the detainee’s rights.

9. Language Understandable to the Arrestee

Article 22(1) requires that the grounds of arrest must be informed to the arrestee in a language that they understand. This is a crucial requirement, as it ensures that the arrestee is able to comprehend the reasons for their arrest and to effectively exercise their legal rights. If the arrestee does not understand the language in which the grounds of arrest are communicated, the arrest will be deemed illegal.

10. Subsequent Actions Do Not Validate Illegal Arrest

The Court clarified that filing a chargesheet or taking cognizance of the offense will not validate an illegal arrest. If the initial arrest was made in violation of Article 22 or other legal requirements, the subsequent actions of the police or the court cannot cure the illegality. The arrest must be lawful from the outset, and any defects in the arrest procedure will render the entire process invalid.

Conclusion

Vihan Kumar v. State of Haryana serves as a significant reminder of the importance of adhering to constitutional safeguards and legal procedures in the process of arrest. The judgment underscores the duties of the police and the magistrate in protecting the rights of the arrestee and ensuring that arrests are made in a fair, transparent, and accountable manner. Non-compliance with these safeguards can have serious consequences, including the invalidation of the arrest and potential legal action against the responsible authorities. The principles established in this case are essential for upholding the rule of law and protecting the fundamental rights of individuals in the criminal justice system.