SC: Written Arrest Grounds Mandatory, Oral Explanation Insufficient

Supreme Court Rules: Written Grounds of Arrest Must Be Given, Oral Explanation at Remand Stage Not Enough

Apex Court says failure to provide written grounds violates constitutional rights under Article 22

Judges stress that arrest memos or court explanations cannot replace the duty to furnish written reasons

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 18, 2025: The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment reinforcing the constitutional right of every arrested person to be informed of the written grounds of arrest. The Court clarified that an oral explanation by a magistrate at the remand stage cannot substitute the legal requirement of providing written reasons.

This ruling strengthens the protection of personal liberty under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person who is arrested shall be denied the right to know the grounds of arrest.

The Case Before the Court

The case arose when an accused challenged his arrest and subsequent remand, arguing that he had not been given the written grounds of arrest. The authorities claimed that since the magistrate had explained the reasons orally during the remand hearing, the requirement was satisfied.

The Supreme Court disagreed. A bench led by Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal held that oral explanations cannot replace written communication. The Court stressed that the right to receive written grounds is not a formality but a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary detention.

Court’s Observations

The Court made several key observations:

Written Grounds Are Mandatory: The Constitution and criminal procedure laws require that written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the accused at the time of arrest.
Oral Explanation Not Enough: A magistrate’s explanation at the remand stage cannot cure the defect of not providing written grounds.
Violation of Rights: Failure to provide written grounds makes the arrest and remand illegal.
Transparency and Accountability: Written grounds ensure that the accused understands the charges and can prepare a defence.

The Court relied on earlier rulings, including Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) and Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh (2025), which had already underlined the importance of written grounds.

Constitutional and Legal Background

The judgment is rooted in Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which states:
“No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest.”

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Section 50 (now Section 47 BNSS) requires that the accused be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing.

The Court clarified that:

An arrest memo alone is insufficient.
The accused must be given a separate written document stating the grounds.
This requirement applies even in serious cases such as murder, terrorism, or NDPS offences.

Why Written Grounds Matter

The Court explained why written grounds are essential:

Safeguard Against Abuse: Prevents arbitrary arrests by forcing authorities to justify detention.
Right to Defence: Enables the accused to consult lawyers and prepare a legal defence.
Judicial Scrutiny: Provides a record for courts to examine the legality of the arrest.
Transparency: Builds public trust in the criminal justice system.

Without written grounds, the accused is left in the dark, unable to challenge the arrest effectively.

Past Precedents

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle in recent years:

Prabir Purkayastha Case (2024): The Court held that written grounds must be furnished, and oral communication is not enough.
Ashish Kakkar Case (2025): The Court overturned an arrest because the accused was not given written grounds, even though an arrest memo was prepared.
Kasireddy Upender Reddy Case (2025): The Court clarified that when an arrest is made with a warrant, the warrant itself constitutes the grounds.

Together, these rulings form a strong body of law protecting the rights of arrested persons.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling has far-reaching implications:

For Police and Investigating Agencies:
- They must strictly comply with the requirement of furnishing written grounds.
- Failure to do so could result in arrests being declared illegal.
For Magistrates:
- They must ensure that written grounds are provided before granting remand.
- Oral explanations during remand hearings are no longer acceptable.
For Citizens:
- Strengthens the right to liberty and protection against arbitrary detention.
- Empowers individuals to challenge unlawful arrests.

Expert Reactions

Legal experts and civil rights activists have welcomed the ruling.

Constitutional lawyers say the judgment reinforces the principle that liberty is the rule and detention is the exception.
Human rights groups argue that the decision will reduce misuse of arrest powers by police.
Criminal law practitioners note that the ruling will improve fairness in investigations and trials.

Broader Significance

The judgment comes at a time when concerns about misuse of arrest powers are growing. In recent years, courts have repeatedly flagged the issue of arbitrary arrests under special laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

By insisting on written grounds, the Supreme Court has created a strong procedural safeguard that will apply across all laws.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling that oral explanations at the remand stage cannot replace written grounds of arrest is a major step in protecting personal liberty. It ensures that the constitutional promise under Article 22 is not reduced to a mere formality.

The judgment sends a clear message: due process must be followed, and rights cannot be compromised for convenience. For citizens, it is a reassurance that the highest court remains a guardian of liberty. For law enforcement, it is a reminder that the rule of law must prevail over expediency.