VIHAAN KUMAR vs THE STATE OF HARYANA 2025

VIHAAN KUMAR vs THE STATE OF HARYANA, 2025

Case Title and Citation: VIHAAN KUMAR V. THE STATE OF HARYANA 2025 INSC 16Case Title and Citation VIHAAN KUMAR V. THE STATE OF HARYANA 2025 INSC 162 (7 February 2025)

Factual Background

The Appellant, Vihaan Kumar, was arrested on June 10, 2024, for alleged offences including criminal breach of trust and cheating under the Indian Penal Code. He challenged his detention before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which dismissed his writ petition. He then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Appellant claimed his arrest occurred at 10:30 AM on June 10, 2024, and alleged non-compliance with the constitutional requirement to produce him before a Magistrate within 24 hours (Article 22(2)). Critically, the Appellant contended that the grounds or reasons for his arrest were never communicated to him, violating Article 22(1). The State claimed the arrest occurred later, at 6:00 PM on June 10, 2024, and that the grounds were orally communicated. A further serious issue was revealed by photographs showing that while the Appellant was hospitalized at PGIMS, Rohtak, following his arrest, he was handcuffed and chained to his hospital bed. The State later admitted this occurred and suspended the officers involved.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the arrest of a person is rendered illegal and unlawful if the grounds for the arrest are not effectively and meaningfully communicated to the arrestee, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
2. Whether the physical restraint (handcuffing and chaining) of an arrested person to a hospital bed constitutes a gross violation of human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Whether subsequent legal steps, such as repeated judicial remands or the filing of a chargesheet, can cure or validate an initial arrest that was unconstitutional due to the violation of Article 22(1).

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and declared the Appellant’s arrest illegal, finding a clear violation of his fundamental rights under Article 22(1). The Court ordered the immediate release of the Appellant and quashed all subsequent remand orders. Additionally, the Court condemned the handcuffing and chaining incident as a gross violation of Article 21 and directed the State of Haryana to issue guidelines prohibiting such practices.

Reason for the decision

The Supreme Court provided the following rationale, with the majority judgment authored by Justice Oka and a concurring opinion by Justice Singh:

1. Mandatory Compliance with Article 22(1): The requirement to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement. This information must be imparted effectively in a manner the arrestee understands, enabling them to seek legal remedies such as bail. The Court found that the State failed to discharge its burden of proof to show compliance with Article 22(1), noting that the State’s claim that the grounds were informed only in a vague case diary entry was rejected as an “afterthought”. Informing the Appellant’s wife of the grounds did not satisfy the mandate of informing the Appellant himself.
2. Uncured Constitutional Illegality: Once an arrest is vitiated due to non-compliance with Article 22(1), the arrest is rendered unconstitutional. Subsequent processes, like repeated remand orders or the filing of a charge sheet, cannot validate or cure the initial constitutional violation. The continued custody following an unconstitutional arrest is also vitiated.
3. Violation of Dignity (Article 21): Handcuffing and chaining the Appellant to a hospital bed was a shocking and gross violation of his fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21. The Court emphasized that custodial treatment must respect human dignity.
4. Purpose of Constitutional Safeguards (Concurring Opinion): Justice Singh emphasized that the constitutional mandate of communicating grounds of arrest, preferably in writing, is a fundamental safeguard to protect liberty under Article 21. This duty, linked also to Section 50A of the CrPC, is not a mere formality; it ensures that the arrestee and their representatives can act swiftly to secure legal aid and bail, thereby actualizing the right to liberty.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the failure of the police to effectively communicate the grounds of arrest to the Appellant made his detention unlawful from the moment of arrest, constituting a violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Since the arrest was vitiated, the Appellant was entitled to immediate release. The Court further censured the police for their shocking treatment of the Appellant in the hospital and directed the State to implement strict guidelines to uphold constitutional dignity.