01 Read
What happened
Article 22(1) of the Constitution guarantees every arrested person the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and to consult a lawyer. The Supreme Court has consistently held that failure to furnish written grounds renders detention illegal. Re-arrest following bail is not automatically barred but must independently satisfy Article 22(1) requirements. The Court treats oral communication of grounds as insufficient, and any detention that bypasses this safeguard is void from its inception.
02 Understand
Why it matters
Article 22 of the Constitution is divided into two distinct parts: clauses (1) and (2) protect ordinary arrested persons, while clauses (4) to (7) govern preventive detention. For CLAT PG, the critical doctrine lives in clauses (1) and (2).
Clause (1) confers three interlocking rights: the right to be informed of grounds of arrest, the right to consult and be defended by a counsel of choice, and the right not to be denied either. Clause (2) adds the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, excluding travel time.
The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023) elevated the standard by holding that grounds of arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act must be furnished in writing, not merely communicated orally. This ruling applies the Article 22(1) mandate with full force to PMLA arrests, overruling earlier practice.
On re-arrest: when a court grants bail and the accused is released, a re-arrest requires a fresh, independent satisfaction of Article 22(1). The earlier intimation of grounds does not carry forward. This is the principle the examiner is most likely to isolate — that constitutional safeguards are occasion-specific, not once-and-done.
Exceptions under Article 22 are equally testable: enemy aliens and persons detained under preventive detention laws are excluded from clauses (1) and (2) protections. The 44th Amendment reduced the maximum preventive detention period without advisory board reference from three months to two months, though this amendment has not been notified for all provisions.
Clause (1) confers three interlocking rights: the right to be informed of grounds of arrest, the right to consult and be defended by a counsel of choice, and the right not to be denied either. Clause (2) adds the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, excluding travel time.
The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023) elevated the standard by holding that grounds of arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act must be furnished in writing, not merely communicated orally. This ruling applies the Article 22(1) mandate with full force to PMLA arrests, overruling earlier practice.
On re-arrest: when a court grants bail and the accused is released, a re-arrest requires a fresh, independent satisfaction of Article 22(1). The earlier intimation of grounds does not carry forward. This is the principle the examiner is most likely to isolate — that constitutional safeguards are occasion-specific, not once-and-done.
Exceptions under Article 22 are equally testable: enemy aliens and persons detained under preventive detention laws are excluded from clauses (1) and (2) protections. The 44th Amendment reduced the maximum preventive detention period without advisory board reference from three months to two months, though this amendment has not been notified for all provisions.
Remember + Why it matters
The key recall facts and exact examiner angle for CLAT PG are in the Crux app.
01
Key figure and date from this topic
02
Specific number or threshold to remember
03
Policy or regulatory implication
Read + Understand free forever · 30-day free trial