Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025
The Supreme Court reaffirmed and expanded the constitutional interpretation of Articles 21 and 22, ensuring uniform procedural fairness across all categories of offences.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
7 November 2025
Judges
Chief Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice Augustine George Masih
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner, Mihir Rajesh Shah, was arrested in connection with a high-profile hit-and-run case in Mumbai.
-
During the arrest, the grounds of arrest were not provided to him in a language he understood, nor were they supplied in written form.
-
The Bombay High Court acknowledged procedural lapses but refused to declare the arrest illegal, reasoning that the offence was serious and the accused had allegedly attempted to evade custody.
-
The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the legality of his arrest on the ground that the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) had not been fulfilled.
Issues
-
Whether Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires that the grounds of arrest be furnished in writing to an arrestee?
-
Whether such grounds must be communicated in a language understood by the arrested person?
-
What are the legal consequences if written grounds of arrest are not supplied in a language comprehensible to the arrestee?
Judgement
The Supreme Court declared the petitioner’s arrest illegal, holding that:
-
The failure to furnish written grounds of arrest in a language understood by the arrestee violates Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.
-
The communication of grounds in an unfamiliar language does not meet the constitutional requirement, as it prevents the arrestee from comprehending the allegations and exercising his legal rights.
-
Extending its earlier reasoning from UAPA and PMLA cases, the Court held that the requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest applies to all offences, including those under the IPC/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Held
-
The grounds of arrest must be provided in writing, and in a language understood by the person arrested, in every case without exception.
-
Mere oral communication or reading out the grounds does not satisfy the constitutional safeguard.
-
Failure to provide written grounds of arrest at least two hours before production before a magistrate renders both the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
-
The judgment emphasizes that the right to be informed of arrest grounds is a fundamental, non-derogable right, intrinsic to personal liberty under Article 21.
Analysis
-
The Supreme Court reaffirmed and expanded the constitutional interpretation of Articles 21 and 22, ensuring uniform procedural fairness across all categories of offences.
-
The Court emphasized the substantive nature of the right—not a mere technicality—since understanding the grounds of arrest allows the accused to:
-
Seek legal advice,
-
Challenge police custody or remand, and
-
Apply for bail effectively.
-
-
The Court’s reasoning underscores that procedural safeguards are essential to the protection of liberty and cannot be diluted even in grave or high-profile cases.
-
Importantly, this judgment extends the principle earlier applied in PMLA and UAPA cases (e.g., Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023) to all arrests, thus ensuring uniform constitutional protection.
-
The ruling serves as a precedent-setting clarification: the mode, timing, and language of communication of arrest grounds are now constitutionally enforceable requirements.