How did the oversight committee strengthen the arrest warrants?

For representative purposes | Photo credit: Getty Images

Story so far:

The Supreme Court recently held in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (September 2026) that an investigating agency will require a magistrate’s permission to re-arrest an accused after his previous arrest was held to be illegal for failure to provide written reasons for the arrest. He also recommended departmental intervention for negligent Investigating Officer (IO) and change of IO in the case.

What governs the communication of reasons for arrest?

The genesis of informing a person of the reasons for arrest results from the constitutional guarantee set out in Article 21 that no one may be deprived of life and personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Article 22(2) states that every person who is arrested and detained in custody must be brought before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest, excluding the time necessary to travel from the place of arrest to the magistrate’s court, and no such person shall be detained in custody after that time without the consent of the magistrate.

Constitutional protection is incorporated in section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act (now section 47 of the BNSS Act). Section 47 of the BNSS imposes on the police officer the duty to inform the accused arrested without a warrant of the reasons for the arrest. However, neither Article 22(2) of the Constitution nor Section 47 of the BNSS specify the method of communicating the reasons for the arrest to the accused person.

How did the law evolve?

In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. (2023), the Supreme Court while dealing with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) case held that there was no valid reason why a written statement of the reasons for the arrest could not be given to the arrestee as a standard procedure without any exception. The court gave two reasons for this. First, where the reasons for the arrest are orally read to the accused person, those oral facts may be challenged in the case at hand. Second, the accused person can request a lawyer to use the bail. The court therefore ruled that providing a copy of the written reasons for the arrest to the accused is mandatory without exception.

This principle was reiterated by the Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (May 2024) while dealing with a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It held that communication of reasons for arrest is not merely a procedural formality but an essential safeguard with the ultimate objective of enabling the arrested person to be re-consulted and to make him effectively ready for re-consultation and interrogation of the arrested person. for his/her bail. Any violation of Article 22(2) would also vitiate the lawfulness of the arrest and subsequent detention and entitle the person to release.

However, in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and others (2025), the court observed that while the ideal way of communicating the reasons for arrest is to provide such reasons in writing, there is no such statutory requirement for them to do so.

How did the court decide in the Rajesh Mihir Shah case?

The Supreme Court in Rajesh Mihir Shah v State of Maharashtra and another (2025) held that the constitutional mandate to inform the arrestee of the reasons for the arrest is mandatory for all offenses under all laws, including offenses under the IPC (now BNS). Second, the reasons for the arrest must be communicated to the arrestee in writing in a language they understand. Third, in cases where the arresting officer is unable to communicate the reasons for the arrest in writing at or shortly after the arrest, it must be done orally. The stated reasons for the arrest must be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours before the arrestee is handed over for custody proceedings before a judge. Fourth, failure to comply would make the arrest and subsequent detention illegal.

what are the consequences?

The Court in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol’s case (supra) said that in case the IO still needs to re-arrest the accused for custodial interrogation during the investigation, the IO has to file a remand application stating the reasons in the Magistrate concerned.

The IO would also need to explain the reasons for not providing the grounds of arrest to the accused. However, the request could be submitted only after the grounds for detention were presented to the accused. The request must also be approved directly by the superior authority. Only after receiving such a request will the judge make a swift decision.

Secondly, the superior authority will hand over the investigation of the case to another official, who will also direct the departmental investigation for the serious deficiency of the written accused’s failure to provide reasons for detention.

In addition, the High Court may order the payment of compensation as part of a public remedy for a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, while the accused may exercise his remedy under private civil law.

(RK Vij is a former IPS officer)

Published – 15 Oct 2026 08:30 IST