Introduction:

In the landmark decision in Babu M. v. State of Kerala and Another & Connected Case, WP(Crl.) Nos. 240 & 247 of 2025, the Kerala High Court underscored the mandatory and non-negotiable obligation of law enforcement authorities to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The judgment, authored by Justice Kauser Edappagath, was delivered in light of writ petitions filed by individuals who were allegedly arrested without being informed—either orally or in writing—of the reasons for their arrest. The Court quashed their continued custody, holding that such arrest and detention, absent proper communication of grounds, constituted a gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners, represented by a large team of advocates led by Senior Counsel P. Sreekumar, contended that their arrests were carried out in blatant contravention of constitutional and statutory mandates, particularly pointing out that no written grounds were provided to them either at the time of arrest or thereafter. The petitioners relied heavily on Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which stipulates that every arrested individual must be informed of the grounds of arrest “as soon as may be” and that such information must be provided without unnecessary delay. They further invoked Section 47 of the BNSS, which expressly mandates communication of the grounds for arrest, thereby underscoring that non-compliance would render the arrest and consequent detention illegal. Citing precedents such as Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023), Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024), and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), the petitioners emphasized that such constitutional violations nullify the arrest itself. On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Special Government Pleader P. Narayanan and Senior Government Pleader Sajju S., argued that the grounds of arrest had indeed been communicated to the accused and that procedural compliance under BNSS had been met.

Judgement:

However, the Court found that no tangible evidence was presented to substantiate this claim. There was a clear admission that the grounds were not given in writing, and the prosecution failed to produce any material proof of oral communication either. Justice Edappagath emphasized that when an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, the onus lies squarely on the arresting agency to establish strict adherence to the legal mandates. The Court stated in unequivocal terms that informing the arrested individual of the reasons for arrest is not a procedural formality but a fundamental right that must be scrupulously observed. In the absence of any such compliance, the Court ruled that continued judicial custody of the petitioners was unconstitutional. The Bench declared that even a second of detention under such circumstances would be illegal and impermissible. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petitions, thereby ordering the immediate release of the petitioners and granting them liberty to pursue any other legal remedies available under law.