In a significant ruling that reinforces the constitutional rights of arrested individuals, the Supreme Court of India on Monday set aside the arrest and remand of Ahmed Mansoor and others under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The apex court held that failure to provide written grounds of arrest at the time of detention was a violation of the law and could not be rectified later by judicial explanations.
Background
The appellants, Ahmed Mansoor and his co-accused, were booked under Sections 153A, 153B, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 13 and 18 of the UAPA. They approached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court upheld their arrest, despite admitting that the written grounds of arrest had not been furnished to them when they were taken into custody.
During the hearing, the State contended that the grounds were "explained orally" by the magistrate during remand proceedings and later shared with their counsel. The defense, however, insisted that such post-facto explanations could not replace the statutory requirement of immediate written communication.
Court's Observations
The bench, comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, disagreed with the High Court’s view, citing earlier landmark rulings such as Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024).
Quoting from these precedents, the bench reaffirmed that the law mandates furnishing written grounds of arrest to the accused at the time of arrest, as a matter of course and without exception.
"The explanation by the court before whom the arrestees are produced can never be an adequate compliance," the judges remarked, noting that Article 22(1) of the Constitution guarantees an arrested person the right to know the precise grounds of their detention.
The bench drew a clear distinction between reasons for arrest - general procedural grounds such as preventing further offences - and "grounds of arrest," which must specifically inform the accused of the factual basis and allegations necessitating their detention.
"The 'grounds of arrest' are personal to the accused," the order emphasized, "and cannot be substituted by the general reasons routinely recorded in arrest memos."
Decision
Citing the decisions in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and subsequent approvals in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court concluded that the mandatory legal procedure had been ignored in Mansoor’s case.
"In such view of the matter," the bench said, "we are inclined to hold that the appeal deserves to succeed only on the ground that the mandate of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing the appellants has not been complied with."
Consequently, the Court set aside both the High Court’s order and the arrests themselves, declaring that the arrests were illegal. However, it granted liberty to the State to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if a case is made out.
The order ends with a succinct reminder - procedural rights are not mere formalities but vital safeguards against arbitrary power.
Case Title: Ahmed Mansoor & Others vs. The State, represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police & Another
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4505 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 14 October 2025