The finer connotations and nuances of Section 19 of The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, left uncharted by this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, 2022 (10) SCALE 577, were still open to interpretation and resolution. Section 19 does not specify in clear terms as to how an arrested person is to be ‘informed’ of ‘grounds of arrest’ and this aspect has not been dealt with or delineated in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.

A person who has just been arrested would not be in a calm and collected frame of mind and may be utterly incapable of remembering contents of ‘grounds of arrest’ read by or read out to him/her. If ‘grounds of arrest’ are orally read out, it may boil down to whether or not there is due and proper compliance. Such a precarious situation is easily avoided by furnishing written ‘grounds of arrest’.

If ‘sensitive material’ finds mention in ‘grounds of arrest’, it would always be open to furnish an EDITED COPY. It would be necessary, henceforth, written ‘grounds of arrest’ is furnished without exception.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar, Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, [Criminal Appeal Nos 3051-3052 of 2023].

_____

Would an action of Enforcement Directorate in handing over written ‘grounds of arrest’ to arrestee and taking it back after obtaining arrestee’s endorsement and signature thereon, as a token of it having read same, and in not furnishing a COPY thereof at time of arrest, render such arrest illegal under Section 19 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002?

Pankaj Bansal held, a COPY of written ‘grounds of arrest’ is to be furnished to an arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. The word ‘henceforth’ implied, submission of Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Singhvi, cannot be accepted. Pankaj Bansal was not required to be given effect retrospectively. There was sufficient compliance of Section 19 of PMLA as also Article 22(1).

Ram Kishor Arora has neither disputed his endorsement nor his signature.

– Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, [Criminal Appeal No. 3865 of 2023] decided on 15.12.2023.

_____

Pankaj Bansal on aspect of informing ‘grounds of arrest’ in writing has to be applied pari passu to a person arrested in a case registered under provisions of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. There is no doubt, any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about ‘grounds of arrest’ in writing and a copy of such written ‘grounds of arrest’ have to be furnished as a matter of course and without exception at earliest.

Constitution Bench of this Court examined scheme of Article 22(5) in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117 and held, communication of ‘grounds of detention’ to a detenue in writing and in a language which he understands is imperative and essential to provide. This interpretation would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1).

It was submitted, Pankaj Bansal was uploaded on this Court’s website in late hours of 04/10/2023. Merely on a conjectural submission, Learned ASG cannot be permitted to argue Pankaj Bansal would not apply.

We make it abundantly clear, no observation made above shall be treated as a comment on merits.

– Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta, Prabir Purkayastha v. NCT of Delhi, [Diary No. 42896 of 2023] decided on 15.05.2024.

_____

Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576 was reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha v. NCT of Delhi, (2024) 8 SCC 254.

A sufficient knowledge of basic facts constituting ‘grounds of arrest’ must be imparted and communicated to an arrested person effectively in a language which he understands [Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 427].

The contention, Vihaan’s Wife was informed about ‘grounds of arrest’, is an ‘afterthought’. No such contention had been raised before High Court. A communication of ‘grounds of arrest’ to an arrestee’s wife is no compliance with mandate of Article 22(1). The stand taken before High Court was, Vihaan’s Wife was informed about Vihaan’s arrest. A mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing ‘grounds of arrest’.

– Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13329 of 2024] decided on 07.02.2025.

_____

Perhaps, enactment of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was due to drastic changes we have seen in 21st century. The presence of modern technology has brought about new categories of crimes. This law has been enacted taking into consideration changing needs.

– Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, [Criminal Appeal No. 1622 of 2022] decided on 08.05.2025.

_____

Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 was pathbreaking and serves as a pivotal reference point in Indian jurisprudence regarding rights of individuals upon arrest. Court eruditely speaking through Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka made some very important observations. The requirement in terms of Paragraph 21(b) as laid down in Vihaan Kumar could be said to have been fulfilled.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025] decided on 23.05.2025.

_____

Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 456 reiterated, Article 22(1) is satisfied if accused is made aware of arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 INSC 768 observed, when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post-Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576 decisions clarify, written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances. 

– Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan, State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, [Criminal Appeal No. 3528-3534 of 2025] decided on 14.08.2025.

_____

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 observed, an arrest results in embarrassment, restricts freedom and leaves permanent scars. Police have not learned lessons implied in and reflected in CrPC, 1973 now BNSS, 2023. Despite long years of independence, it still maintains its colonial image and is primarily viewed as an instrument of oppression and harassment and it is undoubtedly not regarded as a friend.

A mere communication of ‘grounds’ in a language not understood by person arrested does not fulfil constitutional mandate under Article 22. A failure to supply such ‘grounds’ in a language understood by arrestee renders constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and 22. Court is of opinion, to achieve intended objective of constitutional mandate of Article 22(1), ‘grounds of arrest’ must be informed to arrested person in ‘each and every case’ without exception and mode of communication of such ‘grounds’ must be in writing in a language he understands.

– Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih, Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, [Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025] decided on 06.11.2025.