In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court emphasized that informing an arrested person of the reasons for their arrest is not just a legal formality but a constitutional mandate. The court declared that failure to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution and renders the arrest illegal.
“The requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory statutory and constitutional requirement.” – Justice Kauser Edappagath
The judgment was delivered in two connected writ petitions filed by the family members of the accused in two separate cases. The accused had been arrested under the NDPS Act and the BUDS Act, but neither was provided with written grounds for arrest. Though the prosecution claimed that the legal requirements were followed, the court noted that no material evidence was submitted to prove that the accused were informed either in writing or orally.
Justice Kauser Edappagath cited multiple Supreme Court decisions, including Pankaj Bansal v Union of India (2023), Prabir Purkayastha v State (2024), and Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana (2025), to highlight the constitutional importance of communicating arrest grounds.
Read Also:- MP High Court Finds Driver’s Dismissal for Delay in VIP Duty Disproportionate
“If the grounds of arrest are not informed, it would amount to the violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and the arrest will be rendered illegal.” – Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar
According to Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), every person arrested without a warrant must be informed immediately of the reasons for the arrest. The Kerala High Court made it clear that failure to comply with this provision directly violates not only Article 22(1) but also the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
In both cases, the petitioners claimed that the accused were taken into custody without being told the reason for their arrest. The prosecution's argument lacked proof of any such communication. The court noted that the burden to prove compliance lies with the investigating officer, and in these cases, they failed to do so.
“When the accused alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden is always on the Investigating Officer to prove otherwise.” – Kerala High Court
As a result, the court ordered the immediate release of both accused persons. The judgment, however, does not prevent authorities from arresting them again—provided it is done lawfully and in full compliance with the Constitution and BNSS.
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates P. Narayanan (Spl. GP), Sajju S. (Senior GP)
Case No: WP(Crl.) 240 & 247 of 2025
Case Title: Babu M. v State of Kerala and Another & Connected case
