Does non-supply of written grounds of arrest amount to a breach of Article 22(1) that vitiates it without demonstrable prejudice?

Paragraph 22Though Sri Darshan and Sonam Raghuvanshi may appear to strike a discordant note, we need not labor on this. Judgment in Sri Darshan was rendered before Mihir Rajesh Shah; likewise, in the case of Sonam Raghuvanshi, the arrest took place prior to Mihir Rajesh Shah. Therefore, it is Mihir Rajesh Shah which sums up the correct legal position and lays down the correct law which is binding. It is in tune with the consistent line of jurisprudence developed over the years by this Court.

Paragraph 23Having discussed the judgments, it would be apposite to sum up the core principles qua Article 22(1). The grounds of arrest must be in writing and in a language which is understood by the accused. A copy of such written grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. An accused has a fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of his arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. Any attempt to encroach upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution has to be frowned upon by the courts and dealt with strictly. It would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Such a fundamental right being sacrosanct, cannot be breached under any situation. Any breach or non-compliance would entail immediate release of the arrested person because such arrest is unconstitutional. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22. Subsequent filing of chargesheet and order of cognizance will not validate such an arrest. Article 22(1) applies across the spectrum including offences under the IPC or under special enactments. It is not statute specific. It is not a mere formality or a matter of procedure. It is a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard. When there is violation of the Constitution, question of prejudice or demonstrable prejudice does not arise. The safeguards adumbrated in Article 22(1) are not mere procedural safeguards; these are fundamental principles which are required to be followed in the event liberty of a person is sought to be curtailed. Therefore, it is not correct at all to say that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitles the accused to bail. When an accused is released for violation of his fundamental rights under Article 22 (1), he is not enlarged on bail. He is released from illegal and unconstitutional detention.