Context: Constitutional limits on arrest
The Supreme Court has reinforced that the power to arrest is not absolute. It must be exercised according to constitutional and statutory safeguards that protect personal liberty, dignity and due process. This framework primarily rests on Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, read with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Constitutional Safeguards
Article 21
No person can be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to a fair, just and lawful procedure.
Article 22(1)
An arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest.
The person also has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice.
Article 22(2)
The arrested person must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding travel time.
Further detention requires judicial authority.
Important BNSS Provisions
Section 35
Police may arrest without warrant in specified circumstances.
However, the power is subject to statutory conditions of necessity and justification.
Section 47
The arrested person must be informed of the full particulars of the offence and other grounds of arrest.
This gives effect to the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1).
Section 58
A person arrested without warrant cannot ordinarily be detained by police for more than 24 hours without a Magistrate’s special order.
Section 187
Where investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours, the accused must be produced before a Magistrate.
The Magistrate decides whether further police or judicial custody is justified.
Supreme Court: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025
The Supreme Court held that communicating the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement.
It is not a mere procedural formality.
The grounds must be communicated effectively and in a manner that the arrested person can understand.
This enables the person to challenge the arrest and seek legal remedies.
Other Important Judicial Safeguards
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997
This case established safeguards against custodial violence and arbitrary arrest.
These include arrest documentation, informing relatives and medical examination.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014
This case held that arrest should not be routine.
Police must satisfy the statutory necessity conditions.
Magistrates must independently scrutinise the need for detention.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978
This case expanded Article 21.
It required that any procedure affecting personal liberty must be fair, just and reasonable.
Key Takeaway
The power to arrest is limited by constitutional safeguards, statutory requirements and judicial oversight. Arrest must not be routine, arbitrary or mechanical; it must be justified, necessary and communicated properly to the arrested person.
