सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने आदेश दिया: लिखित कारण न बताने वाले पुलिस अधिकारी पर विभागीय जांच होगी

Police Officer Who Arrests Without Furnishing Written Grounds Must Face Departmental Enquiry : Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

21 Sept 2026 1:42 PM IST

If the accused has to be re-arrested, the further investigation must be carried out by another officer, the Court added.

The Supreme Court today (September 21) held that disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against a police officer who arrested a person without furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing.

The bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar observed that the arrest of an accused becomes illegal if the grounds of arrest have not been furnished in writing as per the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. If the investigating agency wants to re-arrest a person whose initial arrest was declared illegal, it needs to first furnish the grounds of arrest and obtain the permission of the concerned Magistrate. On the administrative side, the police officer who failed to furnish the grounds of arrest will have to seek an endorsement from a superior authority for the further custody of the accused.

The superior authority will have to assign the further investigation to another officer, and must direct departmental inquiry against the police officer. If on inquiry there are adverse findings against the police officer, it should entail departmental action with entry in the service book of the officer. The Court has directed that a copy of this judgment should be sent to the Director Generals of Police in all States and Union Territories.

The Court made these observations while declaring the arrest of Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD)-affiliated Mullanpur Dakha constituency in-charge Jaskaranjit Singh, in connection with allegations involving sexual assault of a minor, illegal as grounds of arrest were not furnished to him.

Singh came before the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed the local Court's order, which declared his arrest illegal and ordered immediate release.

In pronouncing the judgment, Justice Bhuyan stated : This appeal raises an important question of wide constitutional import. Can an accused who has suffered a breach of both clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India be re-arrested and if so, under what circumstances, in what manner and what is the procedure which is required to be followed? Though Sri Darshan and Sonam Raghuvanshi may appear to strike a discordant note, we need not labour on this. Judgment in Sri Darshan was rendered before judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v State of Maharashtra (2025). Likewise, in the case of Sonam Raghuvanshi, the arrest took place prior to Mihir Rajesh Shah. Therefore, it is Mihir Rajesh Shah that sums up the correct position and lays down the correct law, which is binding. It is in tune with the consistent line of jurisprudence laid down by this Court.

Having discussed the judgment, it would be apposite to sum up the core principles for Article 22(1) as follows :

1. The grounds of arrest must be in writing and in a language which is understood by the accused. A copy of the grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course without exception.

2. An accused has a fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing, and a copy of such written grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course, without exception, and at the earliest. Any attempt to encroach upon the fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution has to be frowned upon by the Courts and has to be dealt with strictly, as it vitiates the process of arrest and remand.

"Such a fundamental right being sacrosanct can't be breached under any situation. Any breach or non-compliance would entail immediate release of the arrested person because such arrest is unconstitutional. We can't tinker with the most important safeguard provided under Article 22. "

3. Subsequent filing of chargesheet and order of cognisance will not validate such an arrest.

4. Article 22 applies across the spectrum, including offences under IPC or under special enactments. It is not statute specific nor it is a mere formality or a matter of procedure. It is a binding constitutional safeguard. When there is a violation of the Constitution, a question of prejudice or demonstrable prejudice doesn't arise.

"The safeguards enumerated in Article 22(1) are not mere procedural safeguards; these are fundamental principles which are required to be followed in the event the liberty of a person is sought to be curtailed. Therefore, it is not correct to say that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest don't ipso facto render the custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail. When the accused is released for violation of his fundamental rights under Article 22(1), he is not released on bail; he is released from illegal and unconstitutional detention."

The Court further laid down the procedural safeguards as follows:

1. When it comes to the rearrest of the accused who is released from custody for breach of Article 22(1), if on re-release the investigating agency is of the opinion that, for furthering the course of investigation, it is necessary to have custodial interrogation of the accused, the investigating agency has to file an application before the concerned Magistrate for custody mentioning the reason for re-arrest of the accused, and necessity for the same.

2. The application will also contain the explanation for non-supply of the grounds of arrest at the first instance. However, this application can only be moved after furnishing the grounds of arrest to the accused.

3. To rule out any foul play or collusion, such an application must have the endorsement of the immediate senior authority. This is because the immediate senior authority should know that the concerned officer has committed an unbecoming act of violating constitutional provisions for which necessary remedial action should be taken.

4. On receipt of such application, the concerned Magistrate shall decide the same expeditiously and as directed in Mihir Rajesh Shah, preferably within a week of its submission by adhering to the principles of natural justice.

"What is sought to be highlighted is that, once there is a breach of Article 22(1), the power to re-arrest the accused must not left to the discretion of the very same authority which has violated the same provision of the Constitution. It must been judicially implemented."

5. If the Magistrate is satisfied for bona fide reasons that the grounds of arrest could not be furnished to the arrestee at the first instance, but furnished subsequent to this release, and on further satisfaction that the accused needs to be re-arrested, he may pass an order permitting the investigating agency to re-arrest.

6. On the administrative side, when the superior authority is presented with an application taking an endorsement for the custody of the accused who has been released for violation of Article 22(1), he shall hand over the investigation of the case to another officer, further directing department inquiry for such a serious lapse. If the inquiry culminates in adverse findings against the police officer, it would entail departmental action with entry in the service book of the officer.

After pronouncing the procedural safeguards, the Court concluded, saying: "Long back in the celebrated case of Khatri, the Court had strongly urged that the constitutional requirement to produce a person before a judicial magistrate within 24 hours of arrest must be strictly and scrupulously observed. We have come a long way since then but this constitutional mandate continues to remain firm and unshaken as if engraved in stone. Similarly to what we have held and directed, same procedure has to be follwoed when there is a breach of clause (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and if the investigating agency still wants the custody of the accused, after his release from such constitutional violations.

Additionally depending upon the facts and circumstances, the High Courts may direct payment of compensation as a part of public law remedy in case of violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution with liberty to the accused to avail the remedy under private Civil Law. Before we wind up, we must remind ourselves that constitutional provisions can't be interpreted in a vacuum. Constitution is based on certain principles much above the statutory threshold.

Therefore, violation of the Constitution or the constitutional provisions can't be countenanced. It has to be dealt with strictly. It is not dependent on the nature or gravity of the offence, and it can't be interpreted in a restrictive manner. Though observed in the backdrop of preventive detention, it is nevertheless worth mentioning and reiterating for a three-judge of this Court in Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. The District Magistrate, Kamrup (1974), this Court observed: 'The gravity of the evil to the community resulting from anti-social activities can never furnish an adequate reason for invading the personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and the laws...Therefore, whatever its impact on the maintenance of supplies and service,essential to the community may be, when a certain procedure is prescribed by the Constitution or the laws for depriving a citizen of his liberty, it is the duty, of the Court to see that the procedure is rigorously observed."

Case Details: JASKARAN JEET SINGH v STATE OF PUNJAB|Crl.A. No. 4234/2026

Powered by Nyaya 247 News