Discuss how the judiciary has strengthened procedural safeguards against arbitrary arrest under Articles 21 and 22. Do these safeguards hamper effective investigation?

Article 21 allows a person to lose liberty only "according to procedure established by law". Article 22 requires that the person be told the grounds of arrest and be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours [1]. The texts leave gaps, and the Supreme Court has filled them to turn these into rights that courts can enforce.

Judicial strengthening of arrest safeguards

• Fair procedure: Maneka Gandhi (1978) held that any procedure that curtails liberty must be "fair, just and reasonable". This opened arrest procedure to judicial review.
• Custodial guidelines: D.K. Basu (1997) required arrest memos, informing a relative of the arrest, and medical examination of the arrested person.
• Written grounds: Neither Article 22 nor Section 47 BNSS (formerly Section 50 CrPC) says how the grounds must be communicated [1]. The Court required written grounds in Pankaj Bansal (2023, PMLA) and Prabir Purkayastha (2024, UAPA). In Vihaan Kumar (2025), it held that failing to communicate the grounds makes the arrest illegal.
• Closing the loophole: In Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (2026), the Court held that an arrest without written grounds violates Article 22(1) under every law, including special laws. Re-arrest now needs the magistrate's sanction, and the officer responsible faces a departmental inquiry [2].

Do they hamper investigation?

Concerns:

• A paperwork lapse by one officer can free an accused in a serious case, and the victim bears the cost.
• Busy police stations may struggle to draft proper grounds at the moment of arrest.

Why the concern is limited:

• Re-arrest is not barred. It is allowed with judicial oversight once written grounds have been given [2].
• The duty can be met in practice. CBIC already requires GST officers to give written grounds and obtain the accused's acknowledgement [4].
• Liberty is at stake. Undertrials make up about 74% of prisoners [3]. Written grounds let the defence challenge remand in a meaningful way.

The courts have turned Articles 21 and 22 from bare text into a working system of due process. These safeguards discipline investigation rather than obstruct it. Parliament should write the "in writing" requirement into Section 47 BNSS, and states should adopt standard arrest formats and train police in them, in line with the Prakash Singh reforms. That would protect both liberty and effective policing.