Supreme Court Declares Arrest Unconstitutional for Violating Article 22 Rights
In a landmark judgment titled Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [2025 INSC 162], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated and reinforced the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 22(1) and Article 21. The Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh declared the arrest of the appellant as unconstitutional and illegal, setting significant precedent on the communication of arrest grounds and custodial dignity.
📌 Case Background
The appellant, Vihaan Kumar, was arrested on 10 June 2024 in connection with FIR No. 121 of 2023, involving alleged offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC. He approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court under Article 226 challenging the legality of his arrest, but his plea was dismissed on 30 August 2024. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The main grievance was non-communication of grounds of arrest—a breach of Article 22(1)—and inhuman treatment while in custody, including handcuffing and chaining to a hospital bed, in blatant violation of Article 21.
⚖️ Legal Questions Raised
-
Was the arrest unconstitutional for non-compliance with Article 22(1)?
-
Did chaining the appellant to a hospital bed violate his right to dignity under Article 21?
-
Can subsequent remand and filing of a chargesheet cure an arrest vitiated by constitutional violations?
🧾 Supreme Court’s Findings
1️⃣ Violation of Article 22(1) – No Proper Communication of Grounds
The Court emphasized that Article 22(1) is not a formality but a fundamental safeguard. It requires that an arrestee be informed “as soon as may be” of the grounds of arrest. Citing precedents like Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court ruled that oral or vague claims are insufficient. Preferably, the communication must be in writing and in a language understood by the arrestee.
The State failed to show any contemporaneous evidence of such communication. Instead, it claimed the appellant’s wife was informed, which the Court deemed irrelevant and unconstitutional.
2️⃣ Violation of Article 21 – Custodial Humiliation
Photographic evidence showed that the appellant was handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed while admitted at PGIMS, Rohtak. The Court condemned this act as a “shocking violation” of human dignity and directed the State of Haryana to issue guidelines prohibiting such inhuman treatment.
3️⃣ Effect of Subsequent Legal Processes
The State argued that filing of a chargesheet validated the custody. The Court disagreed, holding that constitutional defects at the arrest stage cannot be cured by later legal proceedings. The entire custody, including remand orders, stood vitiated.
🧑⚖️ Concurring Opinion – Justice Kotiswar Singh
Justice Singh agreed with the conclusions but added a significant emphasis on Section 50 and 50A of CrPC, highlighting the necessity of informing both the arrestee and their relatives about the grounds of arrest in writing. He called this a mechanism to activate the right to liberty, enabling swift legal assistance and bail.
✅ Supreme Court’s Directions
-
Declared the arrest illegal for breach of Article 22(1).
-
Ordered immediate release of the appellant.
-
Quashed all subsequent remand orders.
-
Directed Haryana Government to:
-
Frame guidelines prohibiting handcuffing in hospitals.
-
Ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards.
-
-
Clarified that the trial may continue unaffected by the arrest being invalidated.
⚖️ Legal Significance
This ruling is a watershed moment reaffirming the non-negotiable nature of personal liberty and dignity. It cautions the police and judiciary alike to respect constitutional mandates, particularly during custodial procedures. The judgment is expected to shape how arrests are executed and recorded, reinforcing the rule of law.