Written Reasons for Arrest Must Be Given at the Time of Arrest, Rule Also Applies to UAPA-PMLA Cases: Supreme

The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that an arrested person has a constitutional right to receive the grounds of arrest in writing and in a language they understand, with the requirement applying across criminal cases, including proceedings under special laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the ruling in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab on September 21, 2026. The court emphasized that Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides a mandatory safeguard that cannot be diluted simply because the allegations involve a serious offence.

Written Grounds of Arrest Are a Constitutional Safeguard

The court held that the grounds of arrest must ordinarily be provided in writing and at the time of arrest, with a copy furnished to the arrested person.

The information must be communicated in a manner and language that the accused can understand. The purpose is to allow the person to understand why they have been arrested and to effectively seek legal advice and challenge the detention or seek other remedies available under law.

The judgment stressed that Article 22(1) does not create an offence-specific exception. The safeguard therefore applies to arrests made under ordinary criminal laws as well as special legislation.

UAPA and PMLA Cases Also Covered

The Supreme Court specifically discussed earlier rulings concerning arrests under the PMLA and UAPA.

In the PMLA context, the court referred to the requirement that an arrested person must receive written grounds so that they can understand the basis of the arrest and exercise their legal remedies, including seeking bail.

The court also relied on the principle established in the UAPA case of Prabir Purkayastha, under which a person arrested under the anti-terror law also has a fundamental and statutory right to receive the grounds of arrest in writing.

The judgment therefore makes clear that the constitutional safeguard is not limited by the particular statute under which a person is arrested.

Limited Exception in Immediate Arrest Situations

The court also addressed situations in which providing written grounds immediately may be impractical.

Where police already possess documentary material supporting an arrest, the written grounds should be furnished at the time of arrest. In exceptional circumstances, such as certain offences committed in the act where immediate written communication is impractical, the grounds may initially be communicated orally.

Even in such cases, however, a written copy must be supplied within a reasonable period and, according to the judgment’s framework, no later than two hours before the arrested person is produced before a Magistrate for remand.

Unlawful Arrest Can Lead to Release

The Supreme Court reiterated that failure to comply with the constitutional requirement can render an arrest and subsequent remand legally unsustainable.

The court emphasized that a later filing of a chargesheet or an order taking cognizance does not retrospectively cure an unconstitutional arrest.

The judgment also referred to the importance of ensuring that an arrested person receives sufficient information to understand the allegations and consult legal counsel.

Re-Arrest Requires Judicial Oversight

The court imposed additional safeguards where an accused has been released because the arresting authority failed to provide the required written grounds.

The power to simply re-arrest the person cannot be left entirely with the same authority whose failure resulted in the constitutional violation. A fresh application must be made after the written grounds have been supplied, with an explanation for the earlier non-compliance, and the matter requires judicial consideration.

The judgment further indicates that the application should carry the endorsement of the immediate superior authority. The concerned Magistrate is then required to consider the request expeditiously while following principles of natural justice.

Court Stresses Importance of Personal Liberty

The Supreme Court relied on its earlier jurisprudence concerning Article 22(1), including decisions dealing with PMLA, UAPA and other criminal proceedings.

The broader principle is that the seriousness of an allegation does not by itself remove constitutional protections available to an arrested person. The procedure established by the Constitution must be followed when the State restricts an individual’s personal liberty.

The ruling in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol therefore reinforces written communication of arrest grounds as a mandatory constitutional safeguard while also setting out procedural requirements for exceptional cases and any subsequent attempt to re-arrest an accused.