Supreme Court Splits on Mandatory Written Grounds for Arrest

Earlier cases mandated written grounds for arrests

The Supreme Court declared in the 2023 Pankaj Bansal case that arrests under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are illegal if written grounds are not provided. The court noted that merely reading the grounds to the accused is insufficient.

The Pankaj Bansal judgment identified two primary purposes for this requirement, which are preventing disputes between agencies and the accused and enabling the accused to seek legal counsel and bail. This requirement was extended to cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the 2024 Prabir Purkayastha ruling.

The Mihir Rajesh Shah ruling went further by declaring that written grounds are a mandatory constitutional requirement in every case. The Court held in that case that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing and in a language the accused understands without any exception.

Strict enforcement and disciplinary threats in recent rulings

State of Punjab, the Court endorsed the Mihir Rajesh Shah ruling and stated that a police officer who arrests someone without providing written grounds of arrest should face disciplinary proceedings.

Any breach of this right under Article 22(1) would vitiate the arrest process and could lead to the immediate release of the arrested person.

Exceptions and alternative compliance methods

The Vihaan Kumar judgment examined how failure to communicate grounds affects bail decisions. In the 2025 Vihaan Kumar judgment, the Court held that if an arrest is vitiated by a failure to communicate grounds, statutory restrictions on granting bail do not prevent a court from exercising its power to grant bail.

While the Court suggested in Vihaan Kumar that providing written grounds is the "proper and ideal course" to avoid controversies, it noted that Article 22(1) does not explicitly mandate them.

Prejudice-oriented test introduced in Jabhra Ram

The Court’s formal requirement for supplying written grounds of arrest was softened in the Jabhra Ram case, where it adopted a prejudice-oriented test. The Court held that the mere absence of written grounds does not automatically make an arrest illegal unless it causes demonstrable prejudice or denies a fair chance to defend.

The Court observed that he had been served an arrest notice, was immediately informed of the reasons, and received a detailed arrest memo bearing his signature.

His brother was notified and he was represented by counsel during remand with no objection raised.