Give Reason for Arrest in All Offences

 Why in News?

• The Supreme Court (Nov 6, 2025) ruled that the constitutional requirement to furnish grounds of arrest applies to all offences — not just under special statutes like PMLA (2002) or UAPA (1967).
• This judgment reinforces personal liberty under Article 22(1) and Article 21, mandating that every arrested person must be informed of the reasons for arrest at least two hours before being produced in court for remand.

Relevance

GS-2 (Polity & Governance):

• Reinforces Article 21 (Right to Life & Liberty) and Article 22 (Protection in Arrest).
• Expands scope of constitutional due process beyond special laws (UAPA, PMLA).
• Enhances accountability in law enforcement; aligns with Arnesh Kumar (2014) guidelines.
• Strengthens procedural fairness — cornerstone of “Rule of Law”.
• Supports police reforms and human rights jurisprudence.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

1. Constitutional Safeguards (Article 21 & 22)

• Article 21: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
• Article 22(1): Right to be informed of reasons for arrest and to consult a lawyer.
• Article 22(2): Mandates production before a magistrate within 24 hours.

2. Statutory Provisions

• Indian Penal Code (IPC) / Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 – defines offences.
• CrPC 1973 / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 – procedural law governing arrest, remand, and investigation.
  • Section 50 BNSS (analogous to CrPC Sec 50): Obligation to inform grounds of arrest and right to bail.
• Special Laws:
  • PMLA 2002: Mandates communication of arrest grounds in writing (SC in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023).
  • UAPA 1967: Similar requirement for National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrests.

The Current Judgment (2025)

Core Ruling

• Requirement to inform arrest grounds is not limited to special laws but extends to all arrests under general laws (IPC/BNS).
• Such intimation must be given “at least two hours before the accused is produced for remand”.
• The duty is constitutional, not merely procedural — derived from Articles 21 and 22, ensuring “meaningful exercise of the right to liberty.”

Key Observations

• “Personal liberty cannot be a hollow formality.”
• Providing reasons ensures transparency and accountability in police power.
• Failure to communicate grounds vitiates the legality of arrest and can render subsequent detention unconstitutional.
• The right applies irrespective of the offence’s gravity or category — ensuring uniform protection under Article 14.

Significance

1. Strengthening Rule of Law

• Extends constitutional protection to every arrest — ending arbitrary distinction between ordinary and special laws.
• Reaffirms India’s commitment to due process, a cornerstone of Article 21 post-Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).

2. Accountability in Law Enforcement

• Police must record and communicate reasons in writing — promoting transparency.
• Prevents misuse of arrest powers (India averages 60–70 lakh arrests annually, NCRB 2024).
• In 2024, ~70% of arrests were for offences punishable up to 7 years, often unnecessary per Supreme Court’s Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) guidelines.

3. Protecting Personal Liberty

• Aligns with India’s rising custodial death and pre-trial detention concerns:
  • Custodial deaths (NCRB 2024): 175.
  • Undertrials constitute 77% of prison population — among world’s highest.
• This judgment, thus, operationalises the “right to liberty before procedure” principle.

Relation to Previous Judgments

Case	Year	Key Principle
DK Basu v. State of West Bengal	1997	Laid down arrest/detention guidelines.
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP	1994	Arrest should not be routine; must have justification.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar	2014	Police must record reasons for arrest in minor offences.
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India	2023	Written grounds of arrest mandatory under PMLA.
Current Case (SC, 2025)	2025	Grounds of arrest mandatory in all offences, not just special laws.

Overview

• Progressive move: Establishes uniform procedural rights and reduces arbitrary arrests.
• Challenges:
  • Implementation gap — especially at police station level.
  • Requires digital records, legal awareness, and training.
• Way Forward:
  • Integrate “grounds of arrest disclosure” into BNSS digital e-FIR and e-remand modules.
  • Strengthen police accountability commissions under State laws.

---