The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on 7 February 2025, held that the failure to communicate grounds of arrest to an accused person renders the arrest illegal and unconstitutional under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, also condemned the practice of handcuffing a hospitalised accused to his bed as a gross violation of human dignity protected under Article 21.
Background
The appellant, Vihaan Kumar, was arrested on 10 June 2024 in Gurugram, Haryana, in connection with offences of cheating and forgery under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Following his arrest, Kumar was admitted to PGIMS, Rohtak, where he was handcuffed and physically chained to his hospital bed. Photographic evidence placed before the Court established this treatment. The appellant challenged his arrest on the ground that he was never informed of the reasons for his detention, in violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1).
The constitutional guarantee under Article 22(1) provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. This protection, read alongside Article 21's guarantee of personal liberty and dignity, forms the bedrock of procedural safeguards against arbitrary state action.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court established the following principles:
Arrest rendered illegal: The Court held that the arrest of the appellant was illegal on account of the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest as mandated by Article 22(1). Non-compliance with this constitutional requirement vitiates the arrest itself, not merely the subsequent detention.
Immediate release directed: The Court directed the immediate release of the appellant, finding that continued detention following an unlawful arrest could not be sustained.
Handcuffing condemned: The Bench described the handcuffing and chaining of the accused to a hospital bed as a "gross violation of human dignity and the right to life under Article 21." The Court noted that an accused who is hospitalised and under medical supervision poses no immediate flight risk warranting such restraint.
Guidelines on arrest procedure: The Court directed the State of Haryana to issue comprehensive guidelines on arrest procedures, ensuring that investigating officers mandatorily communicate grounds of arrest in writing and refrain from handcuffing accused persons unless there is a specific, documented justification relating to flight risk or danger to others.
Police reprimanded: The Haryana Police was reprimanded for its conduct, and the Court observed that such violations of fundamental rights by law enforcement agencies cannot be treated as routine procedural lapses.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment reinforces the non-negotiable nature of Article 22(1) compliance and provides defence counsel with a strong precedent for challenging arrests where grounds were not communicated. Criminal defence practitioners should routinely document whether arrest grounds were provided in writing, as the Court's reasoning suggests that oral communication alone may be insufficient to satisfy the constitutional standard.
The ruling on handcuffing aligns with and strengthens the long-standing principle from Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) that handcuffing is the exception, not the rule. Practitioners representing hospitalised or medically vulnerable accused should specifically invoke this judgment to resist unnecessary physical restraints during custody.
The direction to the State of Haryana to frame arrest guidelines may catalyse similar exercises by other state police forces, particularly if the Court's observations are treated as having broader normative effect.