A Knock on Liberty’s DoorA Case Study on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2025)

Author: Sri Gugan, Government Law College Salem affiliated to The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Chennai, Tamil Nadu

Background and Context


In India, the Constitution treats life and personal freedom as inviolable. Article 21 secures this promise, while Article 22 adds practical protections for anyone taken into custody. One of its key rules, spelled out in Article 22(1), is simple but powerful: the moment the police arrest someone, they must promptly tell that person why. The case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr  brought this constitutional safeguard to the forefront. The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, dealt with the legality of an arrest made without informing the arrestee of the reasons behind it.
This case is crucial because it reaffirms the importance of procedural fairness, transparency in arrest, and accountability of law enforcement authorities.


Factual Matrix


Vihaan Kumar, a resident of Gurugram, Haryana, was arrested in June 2024 under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those dealing with criminal breach of trust, forgery, and conspiracy. The arrest was based on an FIR lodged by the second respondent.


According to Vihaan’s version, he was picked up from his office at 10:30 AM on June 10, 2024. However, the police claimed that the arrest occurred later at 6:00 PM. Surprisingly, neither the remand report nor the magistrate’s order mentioned the exact time of Vihaan’s arrest. This crucial detail was completely missing, raising serious concerns about how transparently and lawfully the arrest was carried out.  Vihaan also claimed that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).


Further worsening the situation, Vihaan was later hospitalized and was found to be handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed—raising serious concerns about violation of Article 21 (right to life with dignity).
Behind the Bars: The Legal Web
Vihaan was arrested in connection with FIR No. 121 of 2023, involving charges under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Serious offenses, no doubt. But here’s where things became concerning—not just for Vihaan, but for anyone who values their liberty.
No grounds of arrest were communicated to him.
The arrest memo didn’t mention the time of arrest.
He was produced before a magistrate over 24 hours later—raising eyebrows under Article 22(2).
And, shockingly, while hospitalized post-arrest, he was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed.
The Legal Storm: Vihaan Fights Back
When Vihaan’s team approached the High Court challenging his arrest, they raised a simple but powerful question:


Isn’t it unfair—and illegal—to arrest someone without even telling them why? That’s what Vihaan’s side questioned. They pointed to Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which clearly says that a person must be told the reason for their arrest as soon as possible. They also brought up Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which basically says the same thing in law. Both make it clear: no one should be left in the dark when their freedom is taken away.


But the High Court was not convinced. It called Vihaan’s allegations “bald” and sided with the police, who merely stated that they had “informed his wife about the arrest.” No direct communication to Vihaan was proved
Enter the Supreme Court: A Game-Changer
In appeal  the matter finally reached the Supreme Court. A bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh took up the matter in early 2025. And what followed was a detailed, dignified, and powerfully written reminder to the country: Rights matter—even in the moment of arrest.


Why This Judgment Matters Today
In a world of increasing surveillance, custodial violence, and casual arrests, the Supreme Court has drawn a red line:


“Don’t touch liberty without telling people why.”
It’s not just about legal rights—it’s about human dignity.


From now on, this judgment sets a binding precedent: No person can be thrown behind bars without knowing the reason. If done, it’s not just illegal—it’s unconstitutional.


Final Thoughts: Justice Is in the Details
Often, we think of justice as huge verdicts, death penalties, or big corruption trials. But real justice lies in small things—like a man being told why he’s being arrested.


In Vihaan Kumar’s case, the Court didn’t just interpret Article 22(1)—it brought it alive. It reminded India that a Constitution is not meant to sleep on paper. It’s meant to breathe through action, especially when a citizen’s liberty is under threat.


In the end, the case of Vihaan Kumar tells us: Arrest is not just a legal process—it is a moment where a person’s world collapses.


Key Takeaways


The Supreme Court, in a well-reasoned, layered, and empathetic judgment, ruled as follows:
Informing the Grounds of Arrest is Mandatory
This is not a suggestion. It is not a formality. It is a fundamental right. Article 22(1) is part of Part III of the Constitution—it is sacred and non-negotiable.


Non-compliance Vitiates the Arrest
The moment the police fail to inform the person why they are being arrested, the arrest becomes illegal—even if the investigation is otherwise valid.


Continued Custody Becomes Unconstitutional
Even if the person is remanded to judicial custody, if the original arrest is unconstitutional, all following custody orders also fall flat.


Police Must Maintain Contemporaneous Records
Diary entries
Written records
Acknowledgments
Preferably, a written arrest memo containing the grounds
Without this, police cannot fall back on vague statements like “we told him orally.”


In the judgment, reference was made to two significant Supreme Court rulings: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi). These cases had clarified that informing someone of their grounds of arrest must be meaningful, effective, and ideally in writing. It should be done in a language the person understands. This isn’t just about ticking boxes—it’s about ensuring that the arrested person is truly aware of what they are being accused of and can react legally and emotionally to the situation. It also enables them to engage a lawyer intelligently and seek bail or legal protection.


In Vihaan’s case, none of these standards were met. The police merely stated that they had informed his wife and pointed to vague diary entries in the case file as evidence. They did not produce any document showing that Vihaan had been informed directly. More troubling was that their own affidavit before the Court didn’t even make this claim—they relied entirely on informing the wife and argued that this was sufficient. The Court rejected this defense entirely. It ruled that informing a third party, even if close family, does not fulfil the constitutional mandate.


The Supreme Court also criticized the idea that filing a charge sheet or getting a remand from the magistrate could somehow cure the illegality of the original arrest. This is an important point. The Court clarified that once an arrest is vitiated for violating Article 22(1), all subsequent orders related to custody, including remand, are also invalid. The trial, investigation, and charge sheet may continue—but the custody itself is unconstitutional. This was a major declaration, reminding police and courts alike that the Constitution cannot be sidestepped by procedure or paperwork.


What shocked the Court even more was how Vihaan was treated after his arrest—he was handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed while receiving medical treatment. This wasn’t just excessive; it was inhumane and deeply troubling, especially for someone who hadn’t even been proven guilty yet.  This, the Court said, was an affront to human dignity and a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life with dignity. While police officers were suspended, the Court went further and directed the State of Haryana to issue departmental guidelines to ensure this never happens again. Such acts, the judges said, dehumanize the person and break the constitutional promise that every person—no matter how serious the accusation—must be treated with dignity.


By the end of the judgment, the Court ordered that Vihaan be immediately released. It stated clearly that his arrest was illegal due to the non-communication of grounds of arrest. The Court further emphasized that Article 22(1) should not be taken lightly. It is a critical check on arbitrary State power especially in federal state. Every person has a right to know why they are being arrested, and this must be communicated directly to them, not through inference or indirect statements. Police authorities must maintain clear, documented, and contemporaneous records of this communication. Courts, too, must ensure that before granting remand, they confirm that the arrested person has been informed of the grounds of arrest.


This case has now become a landmark reminder that the Constitution of India is not just an abstract legal document. It is a living promise—a guarantee that even in the moment of arrest, the individual is not powerless. Article 22(1) ensures that power is balanced with accountability, and that liberty is not stolen in silence. For law students, legal professionals, and ordinary citizens, the Vihaan Kumar case stands as a solemn warning and a hopeful reminder. It tells us that procedures matter, that dignity matters, and that no one—absolutely no one—can be deprived of liberty without explanation.
In conclusion, Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. is more than just a case about a wrongful arrest. It is a case about constitutional character.

It puts to the test the very protections we usually assume will always be there.  Through this judgment, the Supreme Court has laid down an essential principle: that an arrest without explanation is no arrest at all. It is a violation not just of law but of the very values that define a democratic India. In a time when arbitrary arrests are increasingly questioned, this judgment strengthens the hands of liberty and the voice of justice. The next time someone is arrested without being told why, let this case be remembered—not as a footnote in legal history, but as a shield for every citizen’s right to know, to speak, and to be free.


FAQS


Q1: Why is it important for an arrested person to know the reasons for their arrest?
Knowing the grounds of arrest is directly linked to the right to defend oneself. If a person doesn’t know why they’ve been arrested, they can’t contact the right lawyer, prepare a legal defense, or even know if their arrest was lawful. The Supreme Court made it clear: liberty is not a privilege—it’s a constitutional promise. Arresting someone without giving a reason is like silently stealing their freedom. The right to know is the first step toward seeking justice.


Q2: Is it enough for the police to inform the family of the arrested person about the charges?
No, it’s not. Article 22(1) of the Constitution specifically states that *the person who is arrested* must be informed of the grounds of arrest—not their relatives. In Vihaan Kumar’s case, the police said they told his wife the reason for his arrest, but the Court rejected this as invalid. His wife wasn’t in custody—he was. Even under Section 50A of the CrPC, which requires informing family members about the arrest, this is an additional duty, not a substitute. Informing a family member does not fulfill the constitutional obligation under Article 22(1).


Q3: What if the police read out the reason for arrest—does that fulfill their responsibility?
Not necessarily. Just reading out legal sections or charges may not be enough—especially if the arrested person is distressed, doesn’t understand the legal language, or is in shock. Courts now prefer that the grounds of arrest be given in writing, in a language the person understands, and with proper acknowledgment This ensures the communication is clear, remembered, and recorded. The goal is to ensure that the person truly understands what they’re being accused of—not just that something was mumbled at them during arrest.


Q4: What exactly does Article 22(1) guarantee to an arrested person?
Article 22(1) gives two fundamental rights to every person who is arrested:
1. The right to be informed, as soon as possible, of the grounds of arrest.
2. The right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of their choice.
These rights are not optional—they are constitutional guarantees. Their purpose is to ensure transparency in the arrest process and to prevent misuse of power. It’s the State’s responsibility to ensure that the person arrested knows why their liberty is being restricted, so they can take the next legal steps.


Q5: What happens if the police fail to inform the arrested person about the grounds of arrest?
If the police fail to communicate the grounds of arrest to the person detained, it is a direct violation of their fundamental rights under Article 22(1). This makes the arrest illegal. As the Supreme Court said, even if a charge sheet is later filed or a court remands the person to custody, the initial illegality taints the entire process. Courts can order immediate release if such violations are proven. The law is clear: arrests must be lawful in both form and substance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *