Court affirms compliance with Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution through remand report communication, dismissing claims of illegal detention.
In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of the arrest and remand of two individuals, Tanigadapa Prasad and Tungala Rukhmini. The petition, filed as a writ of Habeas Corpus by petitioner Bolla Kiran, contested the detention as illegal due to alleged non-communication of the grounds of arrest.
The division bench, comprising Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli, delivered the judgment on April 23, 2026, affirming that the communication of arrest grounds through a remand report satisfies the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1). The court ruled that the absence of a formal heading titled "grounds of arrest" in the remand report is immaterial as long as the necessary details are provided, thereby upholding the legality of the detention.
The case revolved around the arrest of the detenues by the Mylavaram Police Station for offenses under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, punishable by up to 10 years of imprisonment. The petitioner argued that the detenues were not informed of the arrest grounds in writing, rendering the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
However, the court noted that the remand report, which was served to the detenues prior to the remand proceedings, contained the necessary details of the arrest grounds. This, according to the bench, fulfilled the requirement of communication as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
The judgment referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasizes the necessity of communicating arrest grounds in a language understood by the arrestee. The court also considered the ruling in Kesireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which validated the use of remand reports for communicating arrest grounds.
The court dismissed the petition, asserting that there was no violation of the fundamental rights of the detenues under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The detention was not deemed illegal, and the petition lacked merit, leading to its dismissal.
The judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards for arrestees under the Indian Constitution while clarifying the acceptable methods of communicating arrest grounds.
Bottom line:-
Compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India requires that grounds of arrest be communicated in writing to the arrestee in a language they understand. Serving a remand report containing such grounds fulfills this requirement, even if notices under Sections 47 & 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, do not contain the grounds of arrest.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21, Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India; Sections 47, 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Bolla Kiran v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2888167
