Oral Grounds Sufficient in Exigent Circumstances — (2025) INSC 1288
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India requires that grounds be communicated 'as soon as may be', not in writing.
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra — (2025) INSC 1288Core Argument
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India requires that grounds be communicated 'as soon as may be', not in writing. In exigent circumstances such as flagrante delicto or imminent absconding, oral communication at the time of arrest is sufficient, and written grounds may follow later before remand.
Key Precedents
- Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994 INSC 170) — Recognises that arrest must be justified with reasons, but does not require written grounds; the reasons can be recorded in the police diary as required by Section 47(2) of the BNSS 2023.
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014 INSC 463) — Requires police to follow procedural safeguards but does not mandate written grounds of arrest for the arrestee; it focuses on the notice to be given before arrest for certain offences.
Premium Argument
Subscribe to access the full argument framework with precedent mapping and submission structure.
Subscribe to AccessAlready a subscriber? Sign inBENCH QUESTION
What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?
OPPOSITION COUNTER
The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...
Unlock the Argument Simulator
4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.
Available on Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans only.
Upgrade to Annual PlanDisclaimer: This argument framework is published by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Adapt all submissions to the specific facts of your matter. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in