Discuss whether the communication of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) has evolved from a procedural formality into a substantive right, citing judicial pronouncements.

Article 22(1) bars detaining an arrested person "without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest". It also guarantees the right to consult a lawyer of choice [1]. Police long treated this as a formality, but the courts have turned it into an enforceable liberty guarantee, though some gaps remain.

The earlier position: a formality

• The text sets no mode of communication. Police relied on bare case-diary entries to show compliance, as the State argued in Vihaan Kumar [2].
• Section 50 CrPC was argued to let police convey "other grounds" in place of the real grounds of arrest, which weakened the safeguard [2].

Judicial evolution into a substantive right

• Harikisan (1962) and Lallubhai Patel (1981): under Art. 22(5), "communicate is a strong word". Grounds must be given effectively, in a language the person understands. This reading was later applied directly to Art. 22(1) [2].
• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1997 SC 610): made an arrest memo and informing a relative binding custodial duties [3].
• Pankaj Bansal (2023): the way grounds are conveyed must be "meaningful". Written grounds help the arrested person seek counsel and bail [2].
• Prabir Purkayastha (2024): written grounds are "sacrosanct". Any breach vitiates arrest and remand, and filing a charge-sheet does not cure it [2].
• Vihaan Kumar (2025 INSC 162): the requirement is "not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement". A breach also violates Art. 21. The burden of proof lies on the police, and magistrates must verify compliance before ordering remand. Section 50 CrPC and Section 47 BNSS cannot dilute it [2].

Bare notice → Effective communication → Written grounds → Breach = arrest void
  (text)    (Harikisan/Lallubhai)  (Bansal/Purkayastha)    (Vihaan Kumar)

Judicial deepening of Art. 22(1)

Gaps that remain

• Vihaan Kumar treats written grounds as advisable, not compulsory, under Art. 22(1). This sits uneasily with Purkayastha [2].
• Art. 22(3) excludes preventive detention from the scope of Art. 22(1) [1].
• "Detention" vs "arrest": protest custody can leave no arrest record at all. In the October 2026 habeas corpus plea over the whereabouts of Cockroach Janta Party leaders, the petitioner had to seek disclosure of the detainees' identities [4].

Court rulings have turned Art. 22(1) from a bare notice requirement into a substantive right whose breach makes custody illegal. Three steps would close the remaining gaps:

• writing a rule for written grounds, in a language the person understands, into the BNSS;
• giving magistrates a compliance checklist for remand;
• recording every protest detention.

Together, these would give full effect to Article 21's promise that liberty can be curtailed only through fair procedure.