The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Article 22(1) Violation in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2025 INSC 162), has delivered a landmark judgment reinforcing the constitutional rights of arrested individuals under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court ruled that failure to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest renders the arrest unconstitutional and vitiates the process of remand. This case underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal law to prevent arbitrary detention and uphold fundamental rights.

Factual Background

The case arose from the arrest of Vihaan Kumar in connection with FIR No. 121 of 2023, registered for offenses under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested on June 10, 2024, at his office in Gurugram, Haryana, and subsequently taken to DLF Police Station. He was allegedly produced before the magistrate on June 11, 2024, exceeding the 24-hour constitutional mandate under Article 22(2) and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.

A critical aspect of the case was that the police did not inform Kumar of the grounds of arrest. The appellant contended that neither the remand report nor the judicial order mentioned the grounds of his arrest. Furthermore, Kumar was subjected to inhumane treatment by being handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed while in police custody.

Key Legal Issues

1. Violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution: The appellant argued that he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, violating his fundamental rights.
2. Non-compliance with Section 50 of CrPC: The police did not communicate the grounds of arrest to Kumar, thereby breaching statutory requirements.
3. Delayed Production Before Magistrate: The appellant was produced before the magistrate beyond the constitutionally prescribed 24-hour period, violating Article 22(2).
4. Unlawful Use of Handcuffs and Chains: The appellant’s rights under Article 21 were allegedly violated by his inhumane treatment in custody.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Rulings

1. Mandatory Requirement to Inform Grounds of Arrest
   • The Court reiterated that Article 22(1) mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. The ruling relied on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), which held that failure to communicate grounds of arrest in writing renders the arrest illegal.
   • The Court rejected the state’s contention that the grounds of arrest were communicated orally or to the appellant’s wife, holding that Article 22(1) requires direct communication to the arrested person.
2. Burden of Proof on Investigating Agencies
   • When a person challenges the legality of an arrest on the grounds of non-communication, the burden shifts to the investigating agency to prove compliance. The Court emphasized that mere diary entries or vague claims do not satisfy constitutional requirements.
3. Effect of Non-Compliance on Legal Proceedings
   • The Court held that an arrest in violation of Article 22(1) not only renders the arrest illegal but also vitiates subsequent remand orders. However, the illegality of the arrest does not impact the validity of the chargesheet or the ongoing trial.
   • The Court clarified that even if a chargesheet has been filed, it does not retrospectively validate an unconstitutional arrest.
4. Condemnation of Inhumane Custodial Treatment
   • The Court condemned the act of chaining the appellant to a hospital bed, terming it a gross violation of human dignity under Article 21. The Haryana State Government was directed to issue guidelines to prevent such inhumane practices in the future.

Court’s Directives

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and passed the following key orders:

• Immediate Release of the Appellant: The Court directed that Kumar be released forthwith, as his arrest was unconstitutional.
• Guidelines for Arrest Procedures: The State of Haryana was ordered to issue directives to ensure that police comply with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1).
• Prohibition of Inhumane Treatment: The state must ensure that no arrested person is subjected to handcuffing or chaining in custody unless legally justified.
• Obligation of Magistrates: The Court emphasized that magistrates must verify compliance with Article 22(1) before remanding an accused to custody.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has far-reaching implications for criminal jurisprudence in India. It reinforces that:

1. Arresting agencies must adhere to constitutional safeguards and statutory mandates to prevent arbitrary detention.
2. Communication of arrest grounds must be meaningful, direct, and in a language understood by the accused.
3. Failure to inform grounds of arrest vitiates the arrest and subsequent custody orders.
4. Human dignity and custodial rights are paramount, and any violation can invite judicial scrutiny and corrective measures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. is a watershed moment in protecting the rights of arrested individuals. It reaffirms the constitutional mandate that no person can be deprived of their liberty arbitrarily. This ruling is expected to bring greater accountability in law enforcement practices and ensure that fundamental rights remain inviolable.

References

1. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2025 INSC 162
2. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576
3. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254
4. Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117
5. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 427
6. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
7. Constitution of India, Article 21 and Article 22