Supreme Court Upholds Fundamental Right to Be Informed of Arrest Grounds

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Supreme Court Upholds...

In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), the Supreme Court held informing grounds of arrest to relative of accused is not sufficient and that Article 22(1) mandates that every arrested person must be informed about the grounds of arrest in a way they understand. The court declared the Appellant’s arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with Article 22(1). The Court ordered the release of Appellant immediate and quashed all subsequent remand orders. The Appellant Vihaan Kumar, arrested for alleged economic offences, argued that he was never informed of the grounds for his arrest. The police admitted that they had conveyed the reasons, but only to the wife of the Accused and not to him.

Further, it was categorically held that such intimation would ensure access to legal remedies and safeguard liberty under Article 21. Further, it was categorically held that such intimation would ensure access to legal remedies and safeguard liberty under Article 21. Thereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held and affirmed that arresting anyone without intimating the reasons for such arrest would be considered an illegal arrest. Additionally, the Court, while taking note of the inhumane act of handcuffing Kumar to a hospital bed, and condemned it and held such an act to be violative of his dignity

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Supreme Court Overrules Azeez Basha: Reframes Minority Institution Criteria in Aligarh Muslim University Case

In AMU v. Naresh Agarwal (2024 INSC 856), a 4:3 Constitution Bench overruled Azeez Basha (1967), holding that an institution does not lose minority status merely because it was created by statute. Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified that “establishment” under Article 30(1) depends on the community’s role in founding it, not on statutory incorporation, and set... Read more » Read more »

Inheritance Rights of Children from Void/Voidable Marriages.

Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2023 INSC 783) The Supreme Court in this case clarified the legal ambiguity surrounding the inheritance rights of children born from void or voidable marriages. The appeal came about in response to a Karnataka High Court decision in which the children of a man’s second (and void) marriage asked for part of... Read more » Read more »

National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

In the case of National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., the Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the NCPCR under Article 32, emphasizing that statutory bodies created to protect fundamental rights cannot invoke Article 32 to enforce their mandates against state authorities or private entities.... Read more » Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.