Introduction: Why This Case Matters
Arrest is one of the most powerful tools available to the State. But with great power comes strict constitutional responsibility. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment reinforcing that constitutional safeguards during arrest are not optional formalities—they are enforceable rights.
The decision reasserts the primacy of Article 22 of the Constitution, clarifies what it means to be informed of the grounds of arrest, and condemns custodial mistreatment in the strongest terms. This ruling is poised to reshape how arrests are conducted and scrutinized across India.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 121 of 2023, registered against Vihaan Kumar for serious offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery under the Indian Penal Code.
Kumar challenged his arrest before the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his plea. His core allegation was simple but profound:
He was never informed of the grounds for his arrest.
He also alleged delayed production before a magistrate and inhuman treatment while in custody.
The Arrest Controversy: A Timeline Dispute
The facts surrounding Kumar’s arrest were contested:
Kumar claimed he was arrested on 10 June 2024 at 10:30 a.m.
The State claimed the arrest occurred at 6:00 p.m.
He was produced before a magistrate at 3:30 p.m. on 11 June 2024. If Kumar’s version was correct, the police violated Article 22(2) and Section 57 CrPC, which mandate production within 24 hours.
Compounding the problem, neither the remand report nor the magistrate’s order recorded the exact time of arrest—an omission the Court found troubling.
Allegations of Custodial Abuse
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the case was Kumar’s treatment while hospitalized at PGIMS, Rohtak. He alleged that he was handcuffed and chained to his hospital bed. Photographs were submitted to the Court.
The Medical Superintendent confirmed this in an affidavit. The police later admitted wrongdoing, suspended the officers involved, and initiated a departmental inquiry.
The Supreme Court described this treatment as inhuman and degrading, violating the fundamental right to dignity under Article 21.
What the Law Requires: Article 22 Explained
Article 22(1) guarantees that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest and allowed to consult a lawyer. This is not symbolic—it is meant to allow the accused to challenge the arrest and seek bail.
The key legal question was:
Does telling the family or noting the grounds in a police diary satisfy Article 22(1)?
The Supreme Court’s answer was a clear No.
Arguments Before the Court
Appellant’s Case
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that:
Kumar was never personally informed of the grounds of arrest.
Informing the wife does not satisfy constitutional requirements.
Recent rulings (Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha) require effective communication of arrest grounds.
State’s Defence
The State argued that:
Grounds were orally communicated and recorded in a diary entry.
Written communication is not mandatory.
The remand report contained the necessary details.
The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling
The Supreme Court delivered a powerful judgment with far-reaching consequences. It held that:
1. Informing Grounds of Arrest Is Mandatory
This is not a technicality. It is a constitutional command.
2. The Arrestee Must Be Personally Informed
Telling a spouse or family member does not substitute informing the arrested person.
3. The Burden Is on the Police
If the accused alleges non-compliance, police must prove they complied.
4. Arrest Memo Is Not Enough
An arrest memo only records administrative details. It does not explain why the person is being arrested.
5. Violation of Article 22(1) Also Violates Article 21
Illegal arrest infringes the right to personal liberty, making custody and remand legally unsustainable.
6. Magistrates Have a Constitutional Duty
Magistrates must verify compliance with Article 22 at the first production. They cannot blindly grant remand.
Outcome of the Case
The Court declared Kumar’s arrest unconstitutional and illegal and ordered his immediate release, subject to a bond. Importantly:
The investigation and trial were not quashed.
The State of Haryana was directed to issue guidelines against handcuffing and enforce strict compliance with arrest safeguards.
A Stern Warning to the Judiciary and Police
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for:
Confusing “communication of arrest” with “communication of grounds of arrest”
Dismissing the allegation as a bald claim instead of requiring proof from the State
The Hon’ble Supreme Court sent a clear message: constitutional rights are not to be diluted by procedural shortcuts.
Concurring Opinion: Expanding the Safeguards
Justice Kotiswar Singh emphasized that grounds of arrest must also be communicated to friends or relatives under Section 50A CrPC. This ensures that legal help can be accessed promptly.
Why This Judgment Is Historic
This decision reinforces that:
Liberty is the rule, arrest is the exception
Police power is subject to strict constitutional discipline
Any violation of Article 22 can invalidate custody, regardless of the seriousness of allegations
In an era of increasing arrests and investigative powers, this judgment restores the balance between State authority and individual liberty.
Conclusion: The Constitution Begins at the Moment of Arrest
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana is more than a case about one arrest. It is a constitutional reminder that the rule of law starts the moment a person is deprived of liberty.
By declaring the arrest unconstitutional and condemning custodial abuse, the Court reaffirmed a timeless principle:
Power without accountability is tyranny, and liberty without safeguards is an illusion.