Context: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that an arrest will be deemed illegal if the written grounds of arrest are not provided in a language understood by the person being arrested.
This extends the earlier protection — which applied only to arrests under special laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) — to all arrests, including those made under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Background and Constitutional Basis
The judgment draws upon the fundamental rights enshrined in:
- Article 22(1): Requires that any person arrested must be informed “as soon as may be” of the grounds for arrest and has the right to consult a legal practitioner of their choice.
- Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, implying that liberty cannot be curtailed except through a fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law.
The Court clarified that these provisions must be read together to ensure meaningful protection of the arrestee’s rights.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
- Right to Know: The person being arrested has a constitutional right to be informed of the specific reasons and charges against them.
- Language of Communication: Merely reading out the grounds or handing over documents in an unfamiliar language does not satisfy the constitutional mandate.
- Written Clarity: The grounds must be given in writing and in a language the person can read or comprehend, enabling them to seek legal counsel or apply for bail effectively.
- Procedural Fairness: Failure to comply renders the arrest illegal and liable to be struck down.
Significance of the Ruling
- Uniform Safeguard: Extends protection to all types of arrests, ensuring parity between special and general laws.
- Empowerment of Citizens: Safeguards linguistic and educationally disadvantaged groups.
- Administrative Accountability: Compels police and investigating agencies to adhere to due process, reducing arbitrary arrests.
- Reinforcement of Rule of Law: Emphasises that liberty can only be curtailed through transparent and comprehensible procedure.
Implications
- Police manuals and arrest procedures across states will require updating.
- Translations and local-language templates of arrest memos will need to be developed.
- Judicial scrutiny of arrest documentation is likely to increase, strengthening the procedural integrity of criminal justice.
Conclusion
This ruling deepens the meaning of “due process” under Articles 21 and 22, reaffirming that the right to liberty is not merely a legal formality but a substantive, communicative right.
By ensuring that every citizen — regardless of language or literacy — understands the reason for their arrest, the Supreme Court has reinforced constitutional morality and inclusivity in the justice system.