Supreme Court rulings in Prabir Purkayastha, Pankaj Bansal, and Vihaan Kumar cases clarify that arrests without proper communication of grounds are illegal under Article 22(1).
Recent Supreme Court rulings have drawn a bright constitutional line: an illegal arrest cannot be cured by a re-arrest, and liberty lost through opacity cannot be redeemed by procedural afterthought.
The Supreme Court of India has taken a firm stand on the recurring issue of illegal arrests, clarifying that re-arresting an accused after an unlawful arrest is not an acceptable workaround. The Court’s 2024–2025 decisions—Prabir Purkayastha v. Union of India, Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana—together constitute a powerful reaffirmation of the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and due process.
These judgments have redefined the contours of lawful detention and the duties of both the police and the magistracy, leaving no ambiguity about the imperative of transparency when depriving a person of liberty.
Constitutional Foundation: Article 22(1) and the Spirit of Due Process
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees that no person who is arrested shall be detained without being informed of the grounds of arrest nor denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.
The Supreme Court has consistently described this right as a bulwark against arbitrary State action. However, frequent reports of detentions without proper communication of reasons continue to surface, prompting the judiciary to reiterate that such violations strike at the heart of constitutional governance.
In Prabir Purkayastha v. Union of India (2024), the Court observed that the failure to furnish written grounds of arrest amounts to a violation of fundamental rights under Article 22(1) and Article 21. Merely informing an accused in vague or oral terms, it said, is insufficient. The accused must receive and understand the written grounds so that they may exercise their right to legal recourse meaningfully.
Pankaj Bansal and the Bar on Procedural Evasion
The precedent set in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) further cemented this principle. The Court held that non-communication of written grounds at the time of arrest renders the detention illegal ab initio. This, the Bench reasoned, was not a curable irregularity but a fatal constitutional defect.
In simple terms, if an arrest is made without telling the person why they are being arrested—in writing and at the time of arrest—that arrest is void in law. The accused must be immediately released, and the State cannot retrospectively correct its mistake by later issuing a written communication or by re-arresting on the same grounds.
The Court noted that allowing a re-arrest in such circumstances would “make a mockery of fundamental rights,” converting constitutional safeguards into empty rituals.
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana: The Magistrate’s Duty
The 2025 judgment in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana marked a crucial evolution of this doctrine. The Bench reminded judicial magistrates of their solemn responsibility to verify the legality of arrests presented before them.
The Court directed that every magistrate must, before authorising remand, ascertain whether:
- The arrested person was informed in writing of the specific grounds of arrest; and
- The accused acknowledged receipt of such grounds.
If these conditions are not satisfied, the magistrate must refuse remand and order immediate release, as continued detention would amount to judicial complicity in an unlawful arrest.
This decision operationalises Article 22(1) by making magistrates the first line of constitutional defence. It also aligns with Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mirrors the procedural rights earlier guaranteed under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Problem with “Re-Arrest”
In several recent cases, investigative agencies have attempted to re-arrest individuals after courts have declared an earlier arrest illegal—often under the guise of “fresh material” or “new grounds.”
The Supreme Court has now made clear that such tactics are unconstitutional. Once an arrest has been declared illegal for violating Article 22(1), the State cannot simply reissue the same grounds in a new format. Doing so would amount to circumventing judicial authority and abusing State power.
The Court warned that allowing such “re-arrests” would incentivise illegality by enabling police officers to make unlawful detentions without fear of consequence. It emphasised that “illegality cannot be legitimised by repetition.”
Liberty and Accountability: The Larger Message
Through these rulings, the Supreme Court has underscored that the presumption of innocence and procedural fairness are not just ideals but enforceable rights. The judgments collectively advance three vital propositions:
- Liberty is the rule; detention is the exception.
- Written communication of arrest grounds is an indispensable constitutional duty.
- Re-arrest after an unlawful arrest is a violation of both Article 22(1) and Article 21, inviting judicial censure.
Legal scholars have hailed these decisions as milestones in India’s evolving jurisprudence of liberty. They represent an unambiguous message to the law enforcement machinery: constitutional compliance is not optional.
The Role of the Magistracy and Police Reform
The judiciary has increasingly recognised that safeguarding liberty cannot depend solely on after-the-fact litigation. The magistracy, as the first institutional checkpoint, must ensure that every detention meets constitutional standards.
Meanwhile, police training and accountability mechanisms must evolve. Every arresting officer should be trained to record, communicate, and justify arrests in writing, as required under BNSS Section 47. Failure to do so should attract personal liability, including disciplinary action and judicial penalties.
According to The Elements of Journalism by Kovach and Rosenstiel, transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of public trust. When the State exercises its coercive powers, these principles must operate with heightened vigilance.
A Broader View: Balancing Law Enforcement and Liberty
Critics of these rulings argue that strict procedural requirements might embolden offenders or hinder investigations. However, the Supreme Court has countered such concerns by asserting that the Constitution does not trade liberty for convenience.
The purpose of these rulings is not to shield the guilty but to discipline State power. As Alain de Botton notes in The News: A User’s Manual, institutions of democracy thrive only when they accept criticism as a form of accountability. The Court’s recent judgments serve precisely that function—reasserting that ends do not justify unconstitutional means.
Conclusion
By linking illegal arrests, magisterial oversight, and constitutional accountability, the Supreme Court has signalled a renewed commitment to protecting personal liberty in a climate of increasing executive assertiveness.
The principle is simple yet profound: no second chance for illegal arrests. If the State wishes to deprive a citizen of liberty, it must do so with complete transparency, written communication, and judicial scrutiny. Anything less is unconstitutional.
For continued coverage of landmark rulings, visit The Legal Observer – National News or explore insightful commentary on YouTube @TheLegalObserver.
Internal Links Used: The Legal Observer, National News, Views – Insight
External Link Used: YouTube @TheLegalObserver
