Case Comment: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2025 INSC 162)

By: Tannu Singh

The landmark Supreme Court judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2025 INSC 162), delivered on February 7, 2025, addressed the critical issue of violation of fundamental rights of the accused under Article 22(1) and Article 22 (2) of the Constitution. Strengthening the constitutional safeguards against unlawful detention and inhumane custodial treatment, the Supreme Court ruled that the arrest of Vihaan Kumar was illegal due to failure to communicate the grounds of arrest. This case is vital in establishing a striking balance between statutory provisions governing arrest and the fundamental rights of the accused under the Constitution of India.

While reiterating the principles laid down in the Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [2023] 12 SCR 714, the Apex Court emphasized the sacrosanct nature of Article 22(1), which establishes the necessity of meaningful communication of grounds of arrest to enable the accused to seek legal counsel and apply for bail effectively. Additionally, the judgment highlights the illegality of handcuffing and chaining the accused to the hospital bed, violating the fundamental right of life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution.

Facts of the Case

The appellant, Vihaan Kumar, was accused of fraud by Games Kraft Technologies’ CEO, following which, he was arrested on June 10, 2024, at 10:30 am from his office in Gurugram for alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, read with Section 120-B. He was then produced before a magistrate on June 11, 2024, at 3:30 pm.

• Vihaan Kumar contended before the High Court that he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, constituting a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). To this, the police contended that they informed the wife of the accused about his arrest.
• He also alleged a violation of Article 22(2) and Section 57 of CrPC, claiming he was not produced before a Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest.
• Further, a factual aspect highlighted that after his arrest, he was hospitalized at PGIMS, Rohtak, where he was handcuffed and chained to his hospital bed, violating Article 21 of the Constitution. Some photographs confirmed this, and the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS also admitted this later.

However, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed his writ, terming the allegations as “simply bald,” and found no constitutional violation. The order was challenged in the Supreme Court.

Issues and Legal Questions

The primary legal questions addressed by the Supreme Court in this appeal were:

• Whether the appellant’s right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution was violated due to the failure to inform him of the grounds for his arrest.
• What constitutes proper and effective communication of arrest grounds, and who bears the burden of proof?
• Whether informing only the nominated friends/relatives about the arrest or the grounds of arrest satisfies the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution (as in this case, the police denied the violation of the said Article with the contention that the wife of the accused was informed at the time of his arrest over a phone call and later informed and explained about the grounds of the arrest again when she came to visit her husband in the police station).
• Did the handcuffing and chaining of the appellant to his hospital bed violate his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution?

When we read Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution, we find nowhere written explicitly about what is the accurate mode (whether verbal or written) of communicating the grounds of arrest to the accused, leaving a scope for misuse. Therefore, these issues are highly relevant to expand constitutional law principles, centering on safeguards against arbitrary detention, upholding personal liberty, and ensuring custodial dignity in India.

Court’s Reasoning and Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court, through the opinions of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, sternly held that the arrest of the appellant was rendered illegal due to the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to him as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

The Court’s reasoning emphasized several key points:

• Informing about the grounds of arrest is mandatory, not a procedural formality: Informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1), not a mere formality.
• Manner of Communication: The grounds must be provided in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts is effectively imparted to the arrested person in a language he understands. While Article 22(1) does not expressly require written communication, the Court strongly suggested providing grounds in writing as the “proper and ideal course”, so that the intent of the Article could be achieved.
• Burden of Proof: When non-compliance with Article 22(1) is alleged by the accused, the burden to prove always lies with the Investigating Officer/Agency.
• “Information” and “grounds” of arrest are two different concepts: The Court explicitly differentiated between “information about the arrest” and “grounds of arrest.” Merely informing the appellant’s wife about his arrest or incorporating grounds in an unserved remand report, or vague police diary entries, does not constitute compliance with Article 22(1). The Court also noted that Section 50 of CrPC (and Section 47 of BNSS), which provides for informing full particulars of the offence or other grounds of arrest, cannot dilute the requirement of Article 22(1) but rather adds to it.
• Custodial Dignity: The Court strongly condemned the handcuffing and chaining of the appellant to his hospital bed, declaring it a direct violation of his fundamental right to personal liberty and dignity under Article 21.

The ratio decidendi is that the fundamental right under Article 22(1) to be informed of the grounds of arrest is mandatory, inseparable from Article 21, and its non-compliance renders the arrest and subsequent detentions illegal. The onus of proving effective communication lies with the arresting agency, and judicial authorities have an active role in ensuring this right.

Critical Analysis

The judgment reaffirms the sanctity of Article 22(1) and its interplay with Article 21, clarifying that constitutional safeguards are not mere formalities but essential to liberty. It rightly places responsibility on the arresting agency by putting the burden of proof on it when a violation of fundamental rights is claimed, and by further holding the magistrate accountable to scrutinize the arrest, the Supreme Court has taken a remarkable step to reinforce judicial oversight in custodial matters. The condemnation of the inhuman treatment of the accused (handcuffing and chaining to the hospital bed) demonstrates a progressive stance on custodial dignity. Additionally, the judgment provides the much-needed clarity on the difference between “information of arrest” and “grounds of arrest,” a common point of advantage that investigating agencies use to evade procedural compliance.

The ruling’s suggestion for written grounds of arrest, even though it is not made absolutely mandatory by the Constitution, brings a remarkable practice to ensure robust protection of fundamental rights. However, this is a point that calls for careful consideration. The Court suggests communication of the grounds of arrest in written form, while it acknowledges that it may not always be practicable. As a result, it leaves ambiguity on what can be defined as “meaningful” in urgent or complicated cases. On the other hand, the judgment left limited room for remedy by leaving the chargesheet and trial proceedings unaffected. Although the arrest was declared illegal, the Court did not quash the chargesheet or trial proceedings. This creates a paradox – an unconstitutional arrest leads to release, but the prosecution continues unaffected.

Despite all these questions asking for more clarification, the judgment still sets a precedent for stricter scrutiny of arrest procedures and reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding personal liberty.

Precedents that the Court Relied On:

Case Referenced	Principle
Pankaj Bansal v Union of India [2023] 12 SCR 714: (2024) 7 SCC 576	The mode of conveying information about the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful, and furnishing a written copy of the grounds of arrest is the advisable course of action.
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2024] 6 SCR 666 : (2024) 8 SCC 254	The Court reiterated the view from Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [2023] 12 SCR 714 through this precedent.
Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 918	The Court underscored that “communicate” is a strong word, meaning that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds must be imparted effectively and fully in writing in a language that the detenu understands.

Conclusion

The judgment of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2025 INSC 162) significantly contributes to the constitutional law, strengthening the safeguards under Article 22(1) and protecting custodial dignity under Article 21. It establishes that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is fundamental and non-negotiable.

This ruling is poised to have a profound impact on future arrest procedures, compelling police agencies to adhere strictly to constitutional mandates by ensuring clear, effective, and ideally written communication of arrest grounds to both the accused and their nominated contacts.

It empowers Judicial Magistrates to act as vigilant guardians of fundamental rights during remand and provides a crucial ground for bail even amidst statutory restrictions. To further solidify these protections, future legislative or judicial interventions could consider mandating digital record-keeping of arrest grounds, accompanied by acknowledgment signatures from the arrested persons.

Bibliography

1. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2025 INSC 162)
2. Vihaan Kumar v The State of Haryana and Anr: Key Ruling and Analysis | Dhyeya Law
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ5kyXVM6IM&ab_channel=StudyIQAfterLL.B
4. Failure to Inform Grounds of Arrest – Supreme Court Observer
5. Informing A Person Arrested Of Grounds Of Arrest Is Not A Formality But A Mandatory
   Requirement Under Article 22(1) Constitution: SC
6. Detailed Case Analysis Vihaan Kumar vs Haryana | PDF | Arrest | Judgment (Law)
7. https://theamikusqriae.com/vihaan-kumar-v-state-of-haryana-anr-2025-insc-162/
8. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [2023] 12 SCR 714

Check out to read the Judgment HERE.