Written Grounds of Arrest: From Pankaj Bansal to Mihir Rajesh Shah

Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. For most of the Republic's history, that guarantee was satisfied in practice by an oral statement, often recorded in a single line of the arrest memo. A sequence of Supreme Court decisions since 2023 has transformed both its form and its consequences.

The development is particularly significant for corporate executives and professionals, who are increasingly exposed to arrest under special statutes such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as well as under the general criminal law.

Pankaj Bansal v Union of India (2023)

Section 19 of the PMLA allows an authorised officer to arrest a person if he has reason to believe, on the basis of material in his possession, that the person is guilty of an offence under the Act, and requires the officer to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest. In October 2023, the Supreme Court held that the grounds must be furnished in writing, and that merely reading them out or allowing the arrestee to see them was insufficient. Without written grounds, the arrestee cannot meaningfully seek legal advice or challenge the arrest and remand. Failure to comply rendered the arrest and subsequent remand invalid.

Prabir Purkayastha v State (NCT of Delhi) (2024)

In May 2024, the Court applied the same reasoning to arrests under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It drew a clear distinction between the 'reasons for arrest', which are general, and the 'grounds of arrest', which are personal to the accused and must contain the facts that led to his arrest. The Court held that the written grounds must be supplied before the accused is produced for remand, and that a remand order passed without them, or without notice to the accused's chosen counsel, was unsustainable.

Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana (2025)

In February 2025, the Court considered an arrest under the Indian Penal Code. It held that informing the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1), and that non-compliance violates Article 21 and vitiates the arrest. The judgment emphasised effective communication, observing that written communication is the ideal way of proving compliance.

Mihir Rajesh Shah v State of Maharashtra (2025)

On 6 November 2025, a bench led by the then Chief Justice extended the written requirement across the criminal law. Arising from a widely reported road accident case, the judgment held that:

• the constitutional mandate to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest applies to all offences under all statutes, including offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;

• the grounds must be communicated in writing, in a language the arrestee understands;

• where it is impractical to supply written grounds at the moment of arrest, for example where the offence is committed in the officer's presence, the grounds may be conveyed orally at that time, but must be supplied in writing within a reasonable time and in any event not less than two hours before the arrestee is produced before the magistrate for remand; and

• non-compliance renders the arrest and remand illegal, entitling the arrestee to be released.

The Court directed that the judgment be circulated to all High Courts and State governments, signalling that it expected police practice to change across the country.

The question before a larger bench

In July 2026, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court indicated that it may refer the question to a larger bench, noting a divergence between the effective-communication approach in Vihaan Kumar and the strict written-supply rule in Mihir Rajesh Shah. Until a larger bench rules, Mihir Rajesh Shah remains binding, and courts continue to apply it in bail and habeas corpus proceedings. Practitioners should, however, follow the reference closely, since its outcome will determine how strictly the requirement is applied in ordinary criminal cases.

Implications for investigating agencies

• Arrest memos should contain case-specific grounds, not a generic recital of the offence, and must be translated where the arrestee does not understand the language used.

• Agencies need a documented process proving the time at which written grounds were supplied, since the two-hour window before remand will be examined closely.

• Remand applications should annex the written grounds so that the magistrate can verify compliance before authorising custody.

Implications for accused persons and their counsel

1. At the first opportunity, ask for the written grounds and note the time they were supplied, or that they were not supplied.

2. Raise non-compliance before the remand court. The magistrate is required to examine it, and a remand made without valid grounds can be challenged in a revision, a habeas corpus petition or a bail application.

3. Distinguish between grounds and reasons. A document that merely restates the offence or the legal provision, without the facts personal to the accused, may not satisfy the requirement.

Conclusion

What began as a PMLA-specific procedural point has become a general constitutional safeguard. The Supreme Court has treated the written communication of grounds not as paperwork, but as the foundation of every other right an arrested person has, from consulting counsel to opposing remand. Whether a larger bench softens the strictness of the rule or not, the principle that liberty cannot be curtailed on unrecorded grounds is now firmly part of Indian criminal procedure.