Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Another, 2025 INSC 1288 (Supreme Court)

(Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025; decided on 6 November 2025)
Bench: Augustine George Masih, J.
Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC

---

Headnote

Constitutional Law — Article 22(1) — Right to be informed of grounds of arrest — Scope and mode of communication — Held, the obligation to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a constitutional mandate flowing from Article 22(1) and Article 21. It applies to all offences, whether under general or special statutes. The grounds must be furnished in writing and in a language understood by the arrestee. Mere oral communication is insufficient. Non-compliance renders the arrest and subsequent custody unconstitutional. Exception — In cases of flagrant offences where immediate arrest is unavoidable, oral communication at the time of arrest is permissible, provided that written grounds are supplied within a reasonable time, and in any event not later than two hours prior to production before the Magistrate for remand.

---

I. Facts and Procedural History

On 7 July 2024, a BMW driven at high speed in Mumbai allegedly by the appellant, Mihir Rajesh Shah, struck a two-wheeler, causing the death of one victim and injuries to another. FIR No. 378/2024 was registered under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The appellant was arrested on 9 July 2024. He alleged violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), contending that he was not furnished the written grounds of arrest.

The Bombay High Court, while recognising procedural irregularity, upheld the arrest on the ground that the appellant was aware of the allegations. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

---

II. Issues

1. Whether, in all cases—including offences under general criminal law—the police are constitutionally bound to furnish written grounds of arrest to the arrestee; and

2. Whether failure to supply such grounds immediately upon arrest renders the arrest illegal.

---

III. Decision

(A) Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1)

The Court reaffirmed that informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right under Article 22(1), intrinsically linked to Article 21’s protection of personal liberty. The right applies uniformly to all offences, not merely those under special statutes like the UAPA or PMLA (¶¶ 33–36).

(B) Written Grounds in a Language Understood by the Arrestee

Drawing upon Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court held that the constitutional objective cannot be fulfilled by oral communication alone.
The grounds must be furnished in writing, in a language comprehensible to the arrestee (¶¶ 41–46). Reference was made to Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, which held that effective communication requires intelligible written disclosure.

(C) Limited Exception and the “Two-Hour Rule”

Acknowledging practical exigencies, the Court permitted an exception where written grounds cannot be furnished instantly—such as in cases of flagrante delicto. However, a written copy must be provided within a reasonable time and no later than two hours prior to production before the Magistrate for remand (¶¶ 52–53). Any delay must be explained in writing in the remand papers.

(D) Consequences of Non-Compliance

Failure to comply with the constitutional and statutory mandate invalidates the arrest and subsequent remand, entitling the arrestee to immediate release (¶ 54). However, investigative acts performed prior to such declaration would not automatically stand vitiated.

---

IV. Commentary

1. Expansion of Procedural Constitutionalism

This judgment represents a culmination of jurisprudence initiated in Pankaj Bansal, where the Court first mandated written grounds of arrest under the PMLA. By extending that reasoning to all offences, the present decision converts a procedural safeguard into a universal constitutional right.

2. Balancing Rights and Practicalities

The Court’s “two-hour rule” introduces measurable content to the phrase “as soon as may be” in Article 22(1). It harmonises fundamental-rights compliance with law-enforcement functionality, providing much-needed clarity for remand-stage practice.

3. Implications for Law Enforcement

The decision imposes a binding procedural discipline on police authorities. Written arrest memos must now include the precise grounds of arrest, translated where necessary, and signed by the arrestee. Magistrates are obliged to verify compliance during remand hearings under Section 48 BNSS.

4. Doctrinal Significance

By grounding this procedural safeguard within the matrix of Articles 21 and 22, the Court has reinforced India’s gradual movement toward procedural due process. The decision brings domestic constitutional practice closer to international norms under Article 9(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which mandates prompt information on arrest grounds.

---

V. Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah has redefined the contours of arrest jurisprudence in India. Written grounds of arrest, furnished in a language the arrestee understands, are now a non-derogable constitutional requirement. The ruling strengthens personal liberty, ensures accountability in policing, and provides a uniform procedural benchmark for the administration of criminal justice.

---

Endnotes

1. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244.

2. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 583.

3. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269.

4. Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 911.

5. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 427.

6. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260.

7. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : AIR 2014 SC 2756.

8. Suhas Chakma v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3031.

9. Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 2 SCC 381 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3580.

10. Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 314.