India is not alone in this development. The UK’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires written notice of the reasons for an arrest. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that detainees must receive “prompt and clear” written reasons for their detention under Article 5 of the European Convention.
Far from being radical, the Supreme Court’s position aligns India with global best practice. The court in Mihir Rajesh Shah also offers a rare sociological insight: an arrest is not just a procedural step, but a life-changing rupture. The court highlights the stigma, psychological trauma, disruption of family life and erosion of dignity that come with arrest. Relying on Arnesh Kumar and Joginder KumarThe decision warns that the arrest should not become an ordinary reflex of the police.
This contextual, humane perspective strongly reinforces the need for written justifications – they are not just a piece of paper; they are the first defense against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The gap between principle and practice can be bridged with a simple standardized form. This ensures uniformity, accountability and ease of judicial review.
Currently, the court relies on statutory duties — written notice to the accused, written notice to relatives, entry in the station register and inspection by magistrates — but the lack of a uniform form leaves considerable room for inconsistency and dispute.
Despite these court rulings, practice in most states remains inadequate. The police still depend on word of mouth and standard memos. Families rarely give written reasons. The magistrate often ignores the lack of confessions. The consequence: constitutional protection remains only a paper promise.
Legal practice from Harrikison to Kaisar Reddy illustrates the way forward. Written justifications for the arrest must be provided not only to the accused, but also to their family members, and the confessions become part of the court record.
It’s not just politeness anymore; it has become a constitutional duty. If Article 22 is to retain meaning beyond ink on paper, if freedom is to be more than just a slogan, the police, judges and judiciary must embrace this practice.
Only then will the families of the arrested be able to act, the lawyers will be able to defend, and the citizens will be sure that the powers of the state to arrest are exercised within legal limits. with Mihir Rajesh Shahcase law has reached a tipping point: written grounds for arrest, provided to both the accused and their relatives, are now a constitutional requirement applicable to all offences. What started as a procedural suggestion in Pankaj Bansal has turned into a universal rule.
The Supreme Court spoke with unprecedented clarity. After the judgment in the Mihir Rajesh Shah case, it is no longer possible to treat Article 22(1) as an empty incantation. Written grounds for arrest are now the constitutional minimum – anything less is illegal. The system should now be listening.
(Krishnan Agarwal is an attorney practicing constitutional and criminal law. He has worked extensively on issues related to personal freedom and procedural guarantees. This opinion and the views expressed above are those of the author. Quintus is not responsible for or endorses them.)
