The Supreme Court has relaxed the stringent rule requiring that an accused individual be informed in writing about the grounds for their arrest in advance. This ruling provides an exception for specific types of crimes, offering a nuanced interpretation of the constitutional mandate ensuring an individual's right to be informed.

In a judgment delivered on Thursday, November 7, 2025, a bench comprising Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice A. G. Masih clarified that, in certain circumstances, such as hit-and-run cases, law enforcement can inform the accused of the reasons for their arrest after the fact, but no later than two hours before they are presented before a magistrate.

The ruling came in response to a plea filed by Mihir Rajesh Shah, who contested his arrest in connection with a BMW hit-and-run case from July 7, 2024. Shah argued that his arrest was illegal and unconstitutional because Mumbai police did not inform him of the grounds for his arrest before taking him into custody. The case alleged that Shah, purportedly under the influence of alcohol, struck a scooter, resulting in the death of a passenger. Shah allegedly fled the scene without notifying the authorities, further complicating the matter.

The Supreme Court, while affirming the fundamental right of an individual to be informed of the reasons for their arrest, also recognized the practical challenges that law enforcement faces in certain situations. The court underscored that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest would render the arrest illegal, reinforcing the importance of upholding individual liberties. Furthermore, the court reiterated the duty of the magistrate to ensure that the accused is produced within 24 hours of arrest.

Legal experts suggest that this relaxation acknowledges the exigent circumstances that can arise during certain arrests, while still safeguarding the constitutional rights of the accused. The balance the court sought to strike ensures that law enforcement can effectively investigate and apprehend suspects in time-sensitive cases without compromising due process.

The exception carved out by the Supreme Court is not without limitations. The requirement to inform the accused at least two hours before their appearance before a magistrate serves as a crucial safeguard, ensuring they have adequate time to understand the charges against them and prepare a defense. This timeframe allows the accused to consult with legal counsel and make informed decisions about their legal strategy.

This ruling could have implications for cases involving other crimes where immediate arrest is necessary to prevent further harm or destruction of evidence. However, it is critical to note that the exception is not a blanket authorization, and law enforcement agencies must demonstrate a valid reason for delaying the disclosure of arrest reasons. The court's emphasis on Article 22(1) of the Constitution reinforces the judiciary's commitment to protecting individual liberties, even while adapting legal procedures to meet the realities of modern law enforcement.