Arrest Illegal if Grounds Not Communicated in Language Understood by Accused: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, requiring that a person arrested must be informed of the grounds of arrest, applies equally to foreign nationals, and failure to meaningfully communicate such grounds in a language understood by the accused would render the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.

A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna set aside the arrest and remand of two Nigerian nationals who had been arrested in a narcotics case, holding that although the authorities claimed to have furnished the grounds of arrest, the same were not communicated in a language known to the petitioners.

The Court observed that Article 22 is “person-centric, not citizen-centric” and extends its protection to all persons within Indian territory, including foreign nationals who may even be overstaying in the country.

The petition before the Court was filed by two Nigerian nationals challenging their arrest in Crime No. 272 of 2024 registered by Sampigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

According to the prosecution, credible information had been received that the accused were selling contraband substances including MDMA crystals and cocaine to software professionals and college students in the city.

Acting on the information, police conducted a raid and allegedly recovered 400 grams of MDMA crystals and 100 grams of cocaine from their possession, with the total value of the seized contraband estimated at Rs. 50 lakh.

The petitioners contended before the High Court that their arrest was illegal as they were not informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of being taken into custody.

It was further argued that they were produced before the Magistrate beyond the constitutionally permissible period of 24 hours, since they were arrested at 7:00 p.m. on 12.05.2024 but produced before the Magistrate at 7:15 p.m. on 13.05.2024.

Opposing the petition, the State submitted that the grounds of arrest had in fact been furnished and that the petitioners had acknowledged receipt of the same.

It was also argued that the delay in production before the Magistrate was minimal and had been duly explained in the remand proceedings.

The Union of India, through the Deputy Solicitor General, also opposed the petition and contended that the petitioners were illegally staying in India and had entered the country on multiple visas under different identities. It was submitted that in such circumstances, Article 22 protections should not strictly apply to them.

The High Court, however, rejected this contention, holding that the constitutional protection against arbitrary arrest applies to all persons within the territory of India. It was emphasized that Article 22 uses the expression “no person” and therefore cannot be restricted only to citizens.

It observed that while certain fundamental rights such as those under Article 19 are confined to citizens, protections under Article 21 and Article 22 extend to non-citizens as well, except in the case of an “enemy alien”.

Referring extensively to recent Supreme Court decisions including Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement and not a mere procedural formality.

The purpose of this safeguard, the Court noted, is to enable the accused to understand the accusations against him and effectively exercise the right to consult a lawyer and seek legal remedies.

The Court further noted that the Supreme Court has clarified that communication of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful and must be conveyed in a manner that the arrestee can fully understand; Where the accused does not understand the language in which the grounds are conveyed, the constitutional mandate cannot be said to have been satisfied.

Examining the facts of the present case, the High Court observed that while the remand application indicated that grounds of arrest had been communicated, they were not conveyed in a language understood by the petitioners.

This failure, the Court held, constituted a violation of the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1).

The Court also addressed the argument regarding the seriousness of the alleged offence under the NDPS Act.

While acknowledging that the offences were grave and involved substantial quantities of narcotic substances, the Court observed that constitutional safeguards cannot be diluted on the basis of the gravity of allegations.

The judgment stressed that procedural safeguards against arbitrary arrest operate as a constitutional check on executive power and must be scrupulously followed irrespective of the nature of the offence.

Accordingly, the Court held that the arrest stood vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory constitutional requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in a meaningful manner; Once the arrest itself was rendered illegal, the subsequent remand orders could not be sustained.

The bench therefore set aside the arrest and remand orders and directed that the petitioners be set at liberty, subject to applicable legal procedures.

Case Title: Emeka James Iwoba @ Austin Noso Iwoba & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Date of Judgment: 04.03.2026