It is definitely worth paying attention that in a major development, we see that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 With Criminal Appeal No.2189, 2190 of 2025 and SLP (Crl) No. 8704 of 2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 1288 that was pronounced as recently as on November 6, 2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that informing the grounds of arrest to the arrestee is mandatory in all offences including the ones under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and adding more clarity also added that the said grounds shall be communicated in writing at least two hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the Magistrate. It also must be borne in mind that the primary legal issue that arose in this leading case was the alleged violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC, 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS, 2023), due to the failure of authorities to provide the grounds of arrest in writing. Most crucially, the Apex Court Bench comprising of CJI Hon’ble Mr Justice BR Gavai and Hon’ble Mr Justice Augustine George Masih explicitly held that, “Mere communication of the grounds in a language not understood by the person arrested does not fulfill the Constitutional mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The failure to supply such grounds in a language understood by the arrestee renders the Constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes the personal liberty of the person as guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution.” No denying it!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Augustine George Masih for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of CJI Hon’ble Mr Justice BR Gavai and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “These Appeals being Criminal Appeal No.2195 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No.2189 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No.2190 of 2025 were originally filed as Special Leave Petitions where leave was granted vide Order dated 22.04.2025. Since, in all these Appeals similar questions of law are involved, they are being decided by this common judgment. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8704 of 2025 was tagged with the above-mentioned matters vide Order dated 02.06.2025.”
As we see, the Bench while dwelling on purpose of the appeal lays bare in para 2 stating that, “The main issue as raised by the Appellants in these Appeals is the violation of the Appellants’ right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC 1973”) now Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS 2023”) as the appellants assert that they were not informed of grounds of their arrest in writing.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while laying bare the facts of the case disclosing that, “For convenience, Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 is taken as the lead case. The facts in a nutshell are that on 07.07.2024, a white BMW car, driven at a high speed, collided violently with the complainant’s scooter from behind. The force of the impact propelled both the complainant and his wife onto the car’s bonnet, whereby the complainant was thrown to the side, and tragically, his wife became ensnared between the vehicle’s front left wheel and bumper. Notwithstanding this grievous state, the driver, alleged to be Mihir Rajesh Shah, the Appellant herein, persisted in his reckless flight, dragging the victim, thereafter absconding without rendering assistance or reporting the incident to authorities. The victim succumbed to the severe injuries sustained in this collision, as medically confirmed, while the complainant sustained minor injuries. FIR No. 378/2024 was registered at Worli Police Station under the relevant provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS 2023”), and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Initial investigative steps included the identification of the offending vehicle through CCTV footage, and the discovery near Kalanagar Junction Flyover of the damaged BMW alongside Rajrishi Rajendra Singh Bindawat and Rajesh Shah, father of Mihir Rajesh Shah (hereinafter, “Appellant”). Arrests soon followed, with co-accused Rajrishi Rajendra Singh Bindawat being taken into custody on the same day and Mihir Rajesh Shah being apprehended on 09.07.2024. The evidence collected firmly established the Appellant as the driver at the material time, including CCTV footage capturing his presence at the wheel, consumption of alcohol shortly before the incident, an attempt to alter his appearance, and use of a Fastag registered in his name, amongst other incriminating particulars.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 that, “The remand proceedings saw the Appellant being produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class with initial police custody extending subsequently into judicial custody; a course contested on the grounds that the grounds of arrest were not furnished in writing as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of BNSS 2023 equivalent to Section 50 of CrPC 1973.”
While shedding more light, the Bench then further lays bare in para 5 revealing that, “The Appellant’s challenge against the legality of arrest was ultimately considered by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3533 of 2024 wherein, vide Judgment dated 25.11.2024, the High Court of Bombay, notwithstanding the acknowledgment of this procedural lapse, upheld the validity of arrest due to the Appellant’s conscious awareness of the gravity of the offence, supported by substantial evidence and the Appellant’s evasion of arrest, thereby justifying custody despite the missing written grounds. The Appellant approached this Court challenging the Judgment of Bombay High Court contending that grounds of arrest as mandated under Section 47 of BNSS 2023 were not informed to him in writing.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 6 that, “This Court, while considering the Special Leave Petition recorded that the Court is not inclined to entertain the petition on its merits and issued notice only to the extent of considering the question of law/legal position. In connected cases, being Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No. 2190 of 2025, this Court vide Order dated 22.04.2025, has granted ad interim relief and directed the Appellants to be released on bail during pendency of these Appeals. In Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8704 of 2025 vide Order dated 02.06.2025, ad interim relief was also granted to the Petitioner therein directing his release on bail. On 13.12.2024, Mr. Shri Singh, learned counsel, who was present in the Court was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in this matter.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 56 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “In conclusion, it is held that:
i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023);
ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands;
iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate.
iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.”
While adding more to it, the Bench further hastens to add in para 57 pointing out that, “After having come to the above conclusion, it is pertinent to note that the provision of law under Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (Section 47 of BNSS 2023) does not provide for a specific mode of or time frame for communication of the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. This Court in Prabir Purkayastha (supra), held that the grounds of arrest be conveyed to the arrestee in writing in all offences at the earliest, which means it need not be given at the time of arrest but within a reasonable time thereafter, for offences under all the statutes, which period would be as has been laid down above in this order.”
Most rationally, the Bench also points out in para 58 holding that, “We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences. Holding as above, in our view, would ensure implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on obligation would avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth.”
What’s more, the Bench makes it clear in para 59 holding that, “In Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025, while issuing notice, this Court had clarified that the Court is not inclined to entertain the petition on its merits, and notice was issued only to settle the issues to bring about clarity thereon, with that having been reached the same stands disposed of.”