JUDGEMENT REVIEW : UNLAWFUL ARREST AND INHUMANE TREATMENT UNDER ARTICLE 21 AND ARTICLE 22

Case Name: Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana & Anr
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 162
Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: February 7, 2025

FACTS OF THE CASE

This case is based on the illegal arrest and detention of Vihaan Kumar by the Haryana Police. He was charged under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. The main issue raised in the appeal was the alleged misuse and violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as Vihaan was not informed of why he was being arrested. It was further argued that the petitioner arrived before the magistrate after the expiration of the procedural period of 24 hours after the arrest of the petitioner. The most shocking report was that he reported that he was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed in police custody which ended up creating serious human right issues. The Punjab and Haryana High Court denied the plea when it was appealed after which the matter was brought before the Supreme Court of India, where the court analyzed the gaps on procedures and violations in the constitutional process in the arrest and detention process in this case.

 

KEY ISSUES

 

1. Was the arrest of Vihaan Kumar in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that an arrestee be informed of the grounds for arrest?
2. Did the failure to produce the appellant before a magistrate within 24 hours amount to a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC?
3. Was the handcuffing and chaining of the appellant to a hospital bed a violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21?
4. Did the Punjab and Haryana High Court err in upholding the arrest despite procedural lapses?

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

 

1. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India – Protection against arbitrary arrest by requiring communication of the grounds of arrest.
2. Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India – Mandates that an arrested individual must be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours.
3. Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Right to life and dignity, which includes protection against inhumane treatment.
4. Section 50 of the CrPC, 1973 – Requirement that an arrested person be informed of the grounds for arrest.
5. Section 57 of the CrPC, 1973 – Prohibition against detention for more than 24 hours without judicial approval.
6. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576 – A Supreme Court precedent emphasizing the requirement of informing arrestees of the grounds of their arrest.

 

ARGUMENTS

Petitioner’s Arguments:

 

1. Rights were violated during his arrest:  He was arrested on June 10, 2024, but was not informed on why he was arrested and according to the police, his wife was informed, but that does not fulfill the constitutional procedure of completing a lawful arrest.
2. Violation of Article 22(2): The appellant said that he was produced before a magistrate only on June 11, 2024, at 3:30 PM, which was after the legally allowed period of 24 hours.
3. Inhumane Treatment: The appellant was allegedly handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed while being treated, which was a gross violation of his fundamental rights.
4. Unlawful Detention: Since why he was arrested was not communicated to him, his detention was rendered illegal.

 

Respondent’s Arguments:

 

1. Compliance with Legal Procedures: The respondent argued that the appellant’s wife was informed of the arrest, which they claimed was sufficient.
2. Article 22(1) was not violated : The State argued that there is no express requirement to provide the grounds of arrest in writing.
3. Compliance with Article 22(2): The police claimed that Vihaan was arrested at 6:00 PM and produced before the magistrate within 24 hours.
4. Restraints were Necessary: The respondent argued that handcuffing was necessary due to security concerns.

 

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court announced after analysis that indeed the appellant’s fundamental rights were violated and also spoke about further findings. The Court ruled that simply informing the respondent’s wife does not satisfy Article 22(1), which legally comments that the person being arrested, himself must be informed of why he was being arrested in a language he understands. Additionally after analysis it was found that Vihaan was not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours which violated Article 22(2). The Court held that failure to inform the petitioner of his arrest made his detention unconstitutional. The Supreme Court strongly commented against the handcuffing and chaining of the plaintiff, by stating about their treatment which grossly violated Article 21. The Court also said that the Punjab and Haryana High Court failed to examine the violations of fundamental rights and had wrongly upheld the arrest despite clear procedural lapses.

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment.
2. The arrest of the appellant was declared unconstitutional and vitiated.
3. The appellant was ordered to be immediately released.
4. The Supreme Court directed the Haryana Government to issue guidelines to prevent such violations in the future.

 

CONCLUSION

Such a judgement is landmark as it reiterates constitutional protection against detention without following due process or inhuman treatment. The Supreme Court again commented on the concept of arrests to make sure to comply with the constitution and that lapses of procedure cannot be agreed to on any and all technical grounds. The judgment makes sure to set a precedent to ensure transparency and accountability in all practices that are used to enforce law and act to avoid police excesses. The case again makes sure to state the judiciary’s role in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring that law complies with legal procedure during an arrest.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more

than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls

into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer,

best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer

lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY TANMAYEE VELLORE RAGHUNANDAN