If Arrest Is Made Pursuant To Warrant, No Obligation To Separately Communicate The Grounds Of Arrest: SC

It has to be definitely taken note most seriously which must definitely capture maximum eyeballs also that in a very significant development, we see that the Apex Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025 (@ SLP (CRL.) No. 7746 OF 2025) with SLP (CRL.) No. 5691 of 2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 768 and so also  in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 628 that was pronounced as recently as on May 23, 2025 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has been most unequivocal in holding most indubitably that when a person is arrested pursuant to a warrant, the obligation to separately communicate the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution does not arise as the warrant itself constitutes the grounds for the arrest to be supplied to the arrestee under Article 22(1). This remarkable judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala for a Bench of Apex Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice R Mahadevan held in plain language very clearly that, “If a person is arrested on warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest.” Absolutely right!

For clarity, the Bench clarified that when an arrest warrant is issued, it presupposes judicial scrutiny of the grounds for arrest as it contains the details about the offence charged, the reasons for arrest (e.g., evasion of trial, threat to evidence/witnesses), and the identity of the accused. Therefore a separate ‘grounds’ document isn’t required as the act of reading the warrant aloud fulfills the Constitutional obligation to inform the arrestee of the reasons. No denying or disputing it!

It is worth paying attention that the top court heard the appeal in this leading case where the appellant had challenged the alleged illegal arrest of his son. Even after receiving rejection from the Trial Court and the High Court, the appellant went a step further and then approached the Apex Court arguing that the arrest was illegal in the absence of compliance of the mandatory provision of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. What also must merit attention is that while affirming the impugned judgment, the Apex Court cited the landmark ruling in Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169 wherein it was made crystal clear that the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution arises only when there’s a warrantless arrest and not when arrest happens on warrant.

 Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 18 what constitutes the cornerstone and lifeline of this robust judgment postulating that, “Thus, the following principles of law could be said to have been laid down, rather very well explained, in Vihaan Kumar (supra):

a) The requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional condition.

b) Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested.

c) The mode of conveying the information of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful so as to serve the true object underlying Article 22(1).

d) If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1).

e) On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing the grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest would stand vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.

f) If the police want to prove communication of the grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in the diary entry or any other document. The grounds of arrest must exist before the same are informed.

g) When an arrestee pleads before a court that the grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police authorities.

h) The grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so that necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of the person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.”

For sake of clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 19 disclosing that, “We must clarify one important aspect of Vihaan Kumar (supra). In Vihaan Kumar (supra) the case was that there was an absolute failure on the part of the police to provide the grounds of arrest. In Vihaan Kumar (supra) reliance was placed upon the entry in the case diary which recorded that the appellant therein was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the arrestee, however, the case put up is that those grounds are not meaningful and are bereft of necessary essential information.”   

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati dated 8.05.2025 in W.P. No. 10858 of 2025 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant herein seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his son viz. Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy came to be illegally arrested by the CID and is in unlawful detention, came to be dismissed.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 stating that, “The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as under:

a. The son of the appellant herein, namely, Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy came to be arrested on 21.04.2025 in connection with Crime No. 21 of 2024 dated 23.09.2025 registered with CID Police Station, Mangalagiri for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code respectively (for short, the “IPC”) (Now Sections 318, 316(5) read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 respectively (for short, the “BNS”)).

b. It appears from the materials on record that on 19.04.2025 the son of the appellant herein was arrayed as accused no. 1 by way of an entry in the case diary.

c. The son of the appellant was arrested at around 6 P.M. from the Hyderabad Airport. At the time of arrest, the grounds of arrest were supplied to him and later were also served on his father i.e. the appellant herein.

d. Pursuant to the arrest, the son of the appellant was brought to Vijayawada and was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate i.e. the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Vijayawada at 5.15 P.M. on 22.04.2025 i.e. within 24 hours of the arrest d. It appears that police remand was prayed for and the same came to be granted vide order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases.

e. The operative part of the remand order reads thus:

“12. Remand report further reveals that, police have to examine several witnesses and has to apprehend several Government and non Government officials and investigation is only at preliminary stage and police requires time to conduct thorough investigation in this case. Therefore, request for remand of Al is accepted, hence, Al is remanded to judicial custody under Section 187 of BNSS till 6.5.025, for the offences under Sections 420, 409, 120 B IPC and Sections 7, 7A and 8, 13(1)(b) , 13 (2) of P.C.Act, Al is hereby ordered to be kept in District Jail, Vijayawada under proper escort. Sd/-P.Bhaskara Rao SPL. JUDGE FOR SPE AND ACB CASES-CUM-III ADJ. VIJAYAWADA”

f. The appellant preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court and prayed for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the arrest of his son was per se illegal and therefore, his continued detention in jail could be said to be unlawful and thereby, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

g. The writ of habeas corpus was prayed for essentially on the ground that although the grounds of arrest were served upon the appellant’s son at the time of his arrest, yet such grounds were not meaningful and were just an eyewash. The grounds of arrest lacked in material particulars.

h. It was argued before the High Court that if appropriate grounds for arrest are not furnished at the time of arrest then the arrest would be violative of Article 22 of the Constitution read with Sections 47 and 48 respectively of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 respectively (for short, the “BNSS”).

i. The High Court adjudicated the writ petition filed by the appellant herein and ultimately vide the impugned judgment and order dismissed the same.”

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 that, “In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here before this Court with the present appeal.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 28 that, “For the purposes of Clause (1) of Article 22, it is not necessary for the authorities to furnish full details of the offence. However, the information should be sufficient to enable the arrested person to understand why he has been arrested. The grounds to be communicated to the arrested person should be somewhat similar to the charge framed by the Court for the trial of a case.”

While citing the relevant case law, the Bench observes in para 33 that, “In McNabb v. United States of America reported in (1943) 318 US 332 (H), Frankfurter, J. observed at page 343:

“Experience has therefore counselled that safeguards must be provided against the dangers of the overzealous as well as the despotic ……………. Legislation such as this, requiring that the police must with reasonable promptness show legal cause for detaining arrested persons, constitutes an important safeguard”.”

While citing yet another relevant case law, the Bench points out in para 34 that, “In United States v. Cruikshank reported in (1876) 92 US 542, it was observed by Waite C.J. that the accused is given the right to have a specification of the charge against him in order that he may decide whether he should present his defence by motion to quash, demurrer or plea.”

While continuing in the same vein, the Bench also points out in para 35 that, “The debates of the Constituent Assembly which framed the Constitution are relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the reason behind the insertion of a certain Article in the Constitution. In the Draft of the Constitution, the Article corresponding to the Article under consideration was Article 15A. The reason given for the inclusion of the said Article was that it contained safeguards against illegal or arbitrary arrests (9 Constituent Assembly Debates, p. 1497).(See: Vimal Kishore Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 All 56).”

Resultantly, the Bench observed in para 37 that, “In the overall view of the matter more particularly having gone through the grounds of arrest we have reached the conclusion that the requirement in terms of para 21(b) as laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) could be said to have been fulfilled.”

No wonder, the Bench then holds in para 38 that, “In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.”

Needless to state, the Bench clarifies in para 39 stating that, “It is needless to clarify that it shall be open for the person arrested viz. Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy and in judicial custody as on date to apply for regular bail before the competent court. If any regular bail application is pending as on date, the same shall be taken up for hearing at the earliest and be decided in accordance with law keeping in mind the well-settled principles governing the grant of regular bail.”