SC in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) held that every arrested person must be directly and meaningfully informed of the grounds of arrest, and failure violates Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC (Section 47 BNSS). The verdict also links an unconstitutional arrest to illegal subsequent remand and reiterates Article 21 dignity. For exams, remember the case, the CrPC-to-BNSS section mapping, and the Arnesh Kumar arrest guidelines.
Exam Lens
Quick Exam Facts From News
1-Minute Revision
- ›Case: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025)
- ›Constitutional Safeguard: Article 22(1) – right to be informed of grounds of arrest
- ›Target this Case: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) – grounds of arrest must be meaningfully communicated; failure violates Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC / Section 47 BNSS.
- ›Target this Timeline: Produce arrested person before magistrate within 24 hours, excluding travel time – Article 22(2) / Section 57 CrPC / Section 58 BNSS.
- ›Target this Precedent: Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) – arrest is exception for offences punishable with less than 7 years; necessity justified under Section 41 CrPC / Section 35 BNSS.
- ›Target this Trio: Articles 14, 19, 21 form the Golden Triangle (Maneka Gandhi, 1978).
Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.
Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.