The Supreme Court has clarified an important limit on its own recent ruling on Article 22(1) — in the case of  Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh Supreme Court has clarified that once proper grounds of arrest are actually furnished to an accused, courts will not strike down the arrest merely because the accused finds those grounds insufficiently detailed. This distinguishes the case from the Court’s landmark ruling in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), where grounds of arrest were not communicated at all.

Background

The case arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by the father of Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, who was arrested by Andhra Pradesh’s CID in connection with an alleged liquor policy scam involving losses exceeding ₹3,200 crores to the state exchequer. The son was arrested on April 21, 2025 from Hyderabad Airport for offences under Sections 420, 409, and 120-B of the IPC — since the alleged conduct occurred between 2019 and 2024, before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) took effect, the substantive offences remained governed by the IPC, while the arrest and remand procedure in 2025 fell under the newly enforced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The appellant’s case was that although grounds of arrest were technically served, they were vague, formulaic, and failed to disclose the specific ingredients of the offences alleged — amounting to what counsel called an “eyewash.” The Andhra Pradesh High Court had dismissed the habeas corpus petition, prompting this appeal.

Legal Point

The central issue was whether Article 22(1) of the Constitution — which entitles every arrested person to be informed of the grounds for arrest — requires only that grounds be communicated, or whether courts must additionally assess whether those grounds were meaningful enough to let the accused mount an effective defence.

Held

The bench distinguished this case sharply from Vihaan Kumar, noting that in that earlier case there was a complete failure to communicate any grounds of arrest at all. Here, by contrast, a detailed nine-point document was actually served on both the accused and his father, describing the alleged conspiracy, the mechanism of the kickback scheme, and specific factual allegations.


The Court reaffirmed the broader principles from Vihaan Kumar: informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is not a mere formality but a mandatory constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1); the burden lies on the police to prove compliance; and non-compliance vitiates the arrest itself, regardless of any subsequent chargesheet or cognizance order. However, applying the test from the pre-constitutional era case State of Bombay v. Atma Ram — whether the communication is sufficient to let the detained person make an effective representation — the Court found the grounds furnished here met that threshold.
Importantly, the judgment also addressed arrests made pursuant to a warrant: where an arrest is warrant-based, reading the warrant aloud to the arrestee itself satisfies Article 22(1), and no separate grounds document is constitutionally required.

Conclusion

This ruling gives investigating agencies and lower courts a clear working rule. Vihaan Kumar applies when grounds of arrest were never communicated at all. Kasireddy Upender Reddy applies when grounds are communicated, but their adequacy is disputed.
For judiciary aspirants, this case should be read alongside Vihaan Kumar, Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024), and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024). Together, these four rulings now form the complete framework for Article 22(1) compliance.

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7746 of 2025) | Decided May 23, 2025 | Bench: J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications.

Editorial Note: This article has been reviewed by the LegalRath Editorial Team to ensure legal accuracy, editorial quality, and clarity before publication.


This summary is prepared for educational purposes only. Readers are advised to refer to the full judgment for authoritative reference.