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

Navigating Legal Boundaries: The Challenge of Passport Renewal Amid Pending Criminal Cases in India

Introduction The renewal of a passport when a criminal case is pending against an individual in India poses a complex and intriguing legal dilemma. The question before the… Read more »

Ambience Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Ambience Island Apartment Owners, (2021) 2 SCC 163

The Supreme Court held that the execution proceedings and original proceedings are separate and independent. An appeal under S. 23 of the Consumer Protection Act will not lie… Read more »

State of Rajasthan Vs. Love Kush Meena, 2020 Scc Online Sc 1177

The court held that for an accused acquitted to join as a police constable, mere acquittal will not be sufficient. The court observed that being acquitted on the… 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.