On 6 November 2025, a Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih of the Supreme Court of India (“SC”) held that every person arrested under any statute must be given written grounds of arrest in a language they understand, and that failure to do so renders both the arrest and the subsequent remand illegal.

The decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Another (2025) arose out of a high-profile hit-and- run case, but the Court quite consciously used it to re-write the grammar of arrest and remand for the entire criminal-justice system.

This article does three things:

1. Tracks the pre-Shah legal position and the gaps between text and practice.
2. Explains the doctrinal shift – from “communication” to a constitutional obligation of written, comprehensible grounds.
3. Sets out exclusive, practice-focused implications for police, magistrates and defence counsel.

I. Before Shah: Strong Text, Weak Enforcement

1.Constitutional & Statutory Framework

Article 21: Arbitrary deprivation of liberty without fair procedure violates the right to life and personal liberty.

Article 22(1): No person who is arrested shall be detained without being informed “as soon as may be” of the grounds of arrest and of the right to consult a lawyer.

Section 50 CrPC, 1973 → Section 47 BNSS, 2023: Every officer arresting without warrant must forthwith communicate the full particulars of the offence or other grounds for such arrest and inform of the right to bail in bailable cases.

Substantive offences that were earlier in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 now largely stand re-enacted in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), while procedure that was in the CrPC is now in the BNSS. On paper, therefore, an arrested person was always supposed to know why they were losing their liberty.

2.The Real-World Gap

In practice, four patterns persisted:

1. Oral, informal “grounds”

Station-diary entries, arrest memos, or remand applications substituted for any formal communication to the arrestee. Many arrests—especially under general penal provisions—never involved a document handed to the accused.

2. Special-law vs general-law split

Coordinate benches in Pankaj Bansal (PMLA) and Prabir Purkayastha (UAPA) insisted on written grounds and a copy to the arrestee, but the discussion was often read as being confined to special statutes.

3. Language barrier

Grounds – when communicated – were frequently in English/Hindi, to persons who spoke neither fluently. Subsequent decisions like Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana pushed the system towards a “language understood” standard, but stopped short of making writing mandatory in all cases.

4. Judicial hesitation to vitiate arrests

Especially in serious cases (terror, money laundering, organised crime), courts were hesitant to declare arrests and remand orders illegal on the sole basis of defective “communication” of grounds, treating the safeguard as flexible rather than absolute.

This gap between constitutional promise and ground reality is precisely where Mihir Rajesh Shah intervenes.

II. The Mihir Shah Breakthrough: From Communication to Written Constitutional Safeguard

1.The Core Holdings

The Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah held, in substance, that:

1. Universal reach

The duty to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes – including BNS/IPC offences and not only “special law” cases.

2. Written, not just spoken

The grounds must be furnished in writing to the arrested person. Oral narration or a vague arrest memo is no longer enough.

3. Language understood by the arrestee

Written grounds must be in a language the accused understands. Merely handing over an English document to a person who only reads Telugu, or reading out legalese to an illiterate person, fails Article 22(1).

4. The two-hour rule

If for genuine operational reasons written grounds cannot be given at the moment of arrest, there can be provisional oral intimation – but written grounds must in any event reach the arrestee at least two hours before production before the remand magistrate.

5. Consequence: Arrest and remand both fall

Non-compliance renders both the arrest and the subsequent remand illegal, entitling the arrestee to be released.

6. Systemic directions

The Registry has been directed to circulate the judgment to all High Courts and State Governments to enable prompt, uniform implementation.

2.A Doctrinal Course-Correction

Earlier this year, in a separate context, a Supreme Court Bench had observed that Article 22(1) does not, in itself, insist that grounds must always be communicated in writing, as long as the mode of communication is effective.

Mihir Shah effectively constitutionalizes written communication where:

the arrest is based on documentary material already with the agency, and written grounds are necessary to make the safeguard under Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS meaningful.

The judgment is therefore best seen as the culmination of a trilogy:

Pankaj Bansal Case – written grounds mandatory under PMLA; copy to the arrestee. Prabir Purkayastha Case – the same logic extended to UAPA and “any other offence(s)”.

Vihaan Kumar Case – emphasized that the mode of communication must ensure that the arrestee effectively understands the grounds, in a language they know.

Mihir Shah Case – takes the final step and universalizes: written + in a language understood + non-compliance = illegal arrest and remand.

III. Before vs After: What Has Actually Changed?

Before Shah

• Police often relied on remand applications or case diaries instead of a dedicated grounds-of-arrest document.
• Written grounds were typically associated with ED/UAPA-type arrests, not with “routine” BNS/IPC offences.
• Magistrates sometimes treated Article 22(1) as satisfied if the arrest memo or the case papers broadly indicated the allegation.

• Challenges to arrest for non-communication of grounds had mixed success; courts were wary of “technical” acquittals.

After Shah

1. Procedural discipline is elevated

Every arrest should be accompanied by a separate written grounds document, not merely an arrest memo, and it must be in the language the person understands (or translated).

2. Magistrate’s gatekeeping role is sharpened

Remand courts can now refuse custody where written grounds were not served at least two hours prior, and can record this as a constitutional defect, not a mere irregularity.

3. Defence counsel have a clean, bright-line objection The inquiry is factual and narrow:
   • Did you give written grounds?
   • In what language?
   • When exactly were they served?

If the answers are unsatisfactory, the arrest and remand are on shaky ground.

4. Vulnerable arrestees gain real, not symbolic, protection

Illiterate persons, language minorities, and those unfamiliar with legal processes are specifically in contemplation. The Court’s stress on “language understood” aligns with trends in High Courts and earlier SC decisions insisting on genuineness, not ritual compliance.

IV. Loopholes Plugged – and New Frictions

Loopholes Now Harder to Exploit

“Oral communication” as a fig-leaf

• Agencies can no longer rely on vague assertions that grounds were “told” orally; proof will rest in the written document and its service.

Special vs general law inconsistency

• The same written-grounds standard now applies across PMLA/UAPA as well as ordinary BNS/IPC offences.

Language tokenism

• Handing over an English document to a person who signs out of fear or confusion will be vulnerable to challenge; courts will look at whether the mode of communication met the “language understood” test.

New Frictions and Open Questions

1.Translation infrastructure

Police stations—particularly in rural and multi-lingual regions—will struggle initially with access to translators and template forms in multiple languages.

2.Illiteracy and disability

Where the arrestee is illiterate or visually impaired, what satisfies the “written + language understood” standard? In practice, this will require a combination of:

• written grounds,
• reading/translation in a language understood, and
• proof (endorsement, independent witness) that the person actually comprehended.

3.Re-arrest after an illegal arrest

High Courts (for example, the Kerala High Court) have held that failure to communicate grounds of arrest invalidates the arrest but does not permanently bar re-arrest, provided the law is strictly followed the second time.

Mihir Shah does not exhaustively settle this; expect future litigation on whether repeated re-arrests can be used to “cure” procedural lapses.

4.Backlog and strategic litigation

Defence lawyers will understandably test the boundaries of the new rule in pending and fresh cases. This may temporarily increase challenges to arrests and remands, pushing courts and police to standardise formats and practice.

V. Exclusive Practitioner Takeaways

1.For Defence Lawyers At the remand stage:

Always ask, on record:

“Has a separate written grounds-of-arrest document been supplied to the accused?” “In which language?”

“At what exact time?”

If the answer is “no” or vague:

• Move for immediate release on the basis that both arrest and remand are unconstitutional.
• Tie your submissions expressly to Article 22(1), Article 21 and Section 47 BNSS and cite Mihir Rajesh Shah with its LiveLaw or SCC citation.

In bail and quashing petitions:

• Use the absence/defect in written grounds as a stand-alone ground along with merits.
• Argue that non-compliance shows arbitrariness and lack of application of mind at the very threshold of arrest.

2. For Magistrates

Make a standard opening inquiry in every remand:

“Has the accused been furnished written grounds of arrest in a language they understand, at least two hours before this production?”

If the answer is “no”:

The proper constitutional response, post-Shah, is not to “cure” the defect by reading the case diary, but to treat the arrest itself as illegal.

3. For Police and Investigating Agencies

• Develop standard bilingual/multi-lingual templates for the most common offences.
• Build an audit trail:
• file copy of written grounds,
• endorsement of service (thumb impression/signature),
• time-stamp,
• note indicating whether translation/reading was done, and by whom.
• Train officers that procedural shortcuts now carry a real risk of losing custody altogether, even in serious cases.

VI. Why This Judgment Matters

Individual Liberty

For the person in custody, the decision finally gives teeth to Article 22(1):

• They see, in writing, why they are being arrested.
• They can take that document to a lawyer, challenge remand, and prepare bail or writ petitions with clarity.

Systemic Impact

The ruling elevates “paperwork” into a constitutional checkpoint: the arrest is either anchored in written, comprehensible reasons, or it is illegal. Over time, this should reduce casual or mechanical arrests and increase accountability for each deprivation of liberty.