Supreme Court orders departmental enquiry, judicial scrutiny over arrests without written grounds

The Supreme Court has laid down additional safeguards for cases in which an arrest is declared illegal because the accused was not furnished written grounds of arrest, holding that any subsequent attempt to secure custody must undergo judicial and supervisory scrutiny.

A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar delivered the ruling on September 21 in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, reported as 2026 INSC 1022. The judgment also directed that the investigation be transferred to another officer and that departmental proceedings be initiated against the police officials responsible for the violation.

Written grounds of arrest are a constitutional safeguard

The court reiterated that Article 22(1) of the Constitution requires an arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest. The requirement is not confined to arrests under specific special laws but applies to arrests generally.

The grounds must ordinarily be furnished in writing and in a language understood by the arrested person. The court reiterated that merely reading out the grounds, or allowing the accused to read them without providing a written copy, would ordinarily not meet the constitutional requirement.

The judgment relied on the principles laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra. Where documentary material forming the basis of the arrest is already available, the written grounds should be furnished at the time of arrest.

In exceptional circumstances where immediate written communication is impracticable, the grounds may initially be communicated orally. However, the written grounds must subsequently be supplied within a reasonable period and, in any event, at least two hours before the arrested person is produced before the Magistrate for remand proceedings.

The court stressed that constitutional safeguards cannot be treated as technical or procedural formalities. It held that a violation of a constitutional requirement must be dealt with strictly, irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged.

Case arose from arrest in Punjab

The case concerned the arrest of Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol on May 17, 2026, in connection with FIR No. 73/2026 registered in Punjab. The FIR invoked Sections 64, 65(1) and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Deol was produced before a Judicial Magistrate on May 18. The Magistrate found that written grounds of arrest had not been furnished to him and, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah, held that the arrest had become illegal.

The Magistrate directed his immediate release while making it clear that the investigating agency could proceed against him in accordance with law, provided the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing arrest were followed.

The matter subsequently reached the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court held that the declaration of the first arrest as illegal did not give the accused blanket immunity from a future lawful arrest. It said the investigating agency could seek his re-arrest or custody if the procedure established by law was followed.

The Supreme Court was therefore called upon to determine whether, and under what circumstances, an accused whose earlier arrest had been held unconstitutional could be taken into custody again.

Re-arrest requires Magistrate's approval

The Supreme Court held that an illegal first arrest does not permanently prevent an investigating agency from seeking the accused's custody. However, the police cannot simply re-arrest the person on their own after the first arrest has been declared unconstitutional.

If custodial interrogation is considered necessary, the written grounds of arrest must first be furnished to the accused. The investigating agency must then approach the competent Magistrate seeking permission for the proposed custody or re-arrest.

The application must explain why the grounds of arrest were not supplied during the first arrest and why fresh custody is considered necessary. The Magistrate is required to consider the request expeditiously, with the court reiterating the approach laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah.

Superior officer must scrutinise custody request

The court also prescribed an additional layer of administrative oversight.

An application seeking custody after an earlier unconstitutional arrest must carry the endorsement of the immediate superior of the police officer concerned. The superior authority must examine the request and the circumstances surrounding the earlier violation.

The Supreme Court held that once an officer has been responsible for a breach of a constitutional safeguard, the matter should not remain entirely within that officer's discretion. The superior authority must therefore be made aware of the lapse before any further custody is sought.

Investigation must be transferred to another officer

The court further directed that the investigation must be handed over to another investigating officer where re-arrest or further custody is sought following an unconstitutional arrest.

The safeguard is intended to ensure that the officer responsible for the initial violation does not continue to exercise complete control over the investigation and subsequent custody proceedings.

The court also directed the superior police authority to initiate a departmental enquiry against the officer responsible for failing to furnish the written grounds of arrest. If the departmental proceedings result in an adverse finding, appropriate disciplinary action must follow under the applicable service rules.

Officers in Deol case already faced action

The Supreme Court was informed that action had already been taken against the police officers involved in Deol's arrest.

Assistant Sub-Inspector Gurtej Singh, who was the investigating officer and had effected the initial arrest, had been suspended after the authorities found that he had failed to properly prepare and deliver the written grounds of arrest.

Inspector Rupinder Singh, the Station House Officer, was transferred to the Police Lines after being held responsible for supervisory lapses in examining and verifying the arrest documents. Departmental action was initiated against both officers.

Release after illegal arrest is different from bail

The judgment also distinguished between release following an unconstitutional arrest and release on bail.

Where a person is released because the arrest itself violated Article 22(1), the release is not equivalent to the grant of bail in the conventional sense. It follows because the detention has become unconstitutional.

The investigating agency may therefore seek lawful custody at a later stage, but only after complying with the procedure and safeguards prescribed by the Supreme Court.

The court made clear that the constitutional defect in the first arrest cannot simply be disregarded by carrying out another arrest without judicial scrutiny and compliance with Article 22.

Article 22 also protects against unlawful detention

The court also considered Article 22(2), which requires an arrested person to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey.

The judgment therefore emphasised two distinct constitutional protections surrounding arrest: the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and the right to be produced before a Magistrate within the prescribed period.

The court noted that a breach of these constitutional safeguards can render the detention illegal. It stressed that the procedure prescribed by the Constitution must be rigorously followed irrespective of the seriousness of the allegations.

Earlier rulings form the legal foundation

The Bench considered earlier Supreme Court decisions concerning the communication of grounds of arrest, including Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha and Mihir Rajesh Shah.

The present judgment builds on the safeguards established in those cases, particularly the requirement that grounds of arrest be communicated in writing and the procedure to be followed when an agency seeks custody after an earlier arrest has been invalidated.

The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order and the relevant observations of the Magistrate. It directed that if the investigating agency considers custodial interrogation necessary, it must follow the procedure prescribed in Mihir Rajesh Shah along with the additional safeguards laid down in the present judgment.

The Bench clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations against Deol.

It also directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to the Directors General of Police of all states and Union territories, the Registrars General of the High Courts and the Directors of State Judicial Academies.