Constitutional Limits on Arrest
Prelims:
Indian Polity and
Constitution
Mains:
GS Paper II: Indian Constitution, Government policies and
interventions
Current relevance:
The Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) reinforced safeguards against arbitrary arrest by holding that every arrested person must be directly, properly and meaningfully informed of the grounds of arrest.
Highlights:
Supreme
Court Ruling in Vihaan Kumar Case
1.
An arrested person must be properly and meaningfully informed of the grounds of arrest.
2. The information
must be communicated directly to the
arrested person in a manner that enables them to understand the reasons for arrest.
3. Merely informing
relatives or maintaining ambiguous
records does not fulfil the constitutional requirement.
4. Failure to
communicate the grounds violates Article
22(1) and Section 47 of the BNSS,
2023.
5. If the initial arrest is unconstitutional,
subsequent remand orders would also be illegal.
6. The arrest memo must record the time of arrest
to ensure compliance with the 24-hour production requirement.
7. The Court also
condemned degrading treatment in custody,
affirming the right to dignity under Article
21.
Constitutional provisions:
1.
Article 21: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by
law.”
2. Article 22: Provides
important procedural safeguards to an arrested person, including:
·
Right to be informed
of the grounds of arrest.
·
Right to consult
and be defended by a lawyer.
·
Right to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding travel time.
These protections
seek to ensure that the State's power of arrest is not exercised arbitrarily.
Arrest
under BNSS & Judicial Safeguards:
1.
Section 35 of BNSS deals with the circumstances
governing the police power of arrest.
2.
Section 47 requires communication of the grounds of arrest.
3.
Section 58 provides the
safeguard concerning detention beyond 24 hours without Magistrate's authorisation.
4.
In Arnesh Kumar v.
State of Bihar (2014), the Supreme Court held that arrest should generally
be an exception where punishment is less
than seven years.
5.
Police must assess whether an arrest is actually necessary; a routine arrest
cannot be justified merely because the police possess the power to arrest.
6.
These safeguards seek to prevent harassment, unnecessary
arrest and abuse of criminal process.
Arrest,
Detention & Preventive Detention:
1.
Arrest involves formal
police custody based on probable cause regarding the commission of an offence.
2.
Detention is described as
a temporary restraint for investigation where the person has not been charged
with an offence.
3.
Article 22 also deals with preventive detention, under which the
ordinary procedural safeguards mentioned for arrest do not apply in the same
manner.
4.
Preventive detention may continue for three months, after which an Advisory
Board is required for extension, as described in the given information.
Balancing
State Authority with Personal Liberty:
1.
The constitutional framework seeks to maintain a delicate balance between the State's
authority to arrest and an individual's liberty and dignity.
2. The Supreme
Court's decision in Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India (1978) links Articles
14, 19 and 21, forming the constitutional “Golden Triangle.”
3. Article 14 – protection
against arbitrariness + Article 19 – freedoms/procedural fairness + Article
21 – life and personal liberty
4. Therefore, an arbitrary exercise of arrest or detention
powers can undermine the interconnected constitutional protections of equality,
freedom and personal liberty, making procedural safeguards essential to a
vibrant democracy.
Source: THE HINDU
- https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-constitutional-limits-on-arrest/article71340875.ece