VIHAAN KUMAR vs THE STATE OF HARYANA Crl.A. No. 621/2025

-Sanskriti Verma The Supreme Court's ruling in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (Crl.A. No. 621/2025) delivered in February 2025, is a reaffirmation of India’s constitutional commitment to individual liberty and procedural fairness. In an era where arrests are often used as tools of coercion and intimidation, the Court has decisively reiterated that the rule of law does not permit shortcuts, especially when the freedom of a citizen is at stake.

At the core of the case was a simple but fundamental question: can an arrest stand if the person being arrested is not informed of the grounds for arrest at the time it is made? The Supreme Court answered with an unambiguous no—an answer that may well serve as a cornerstone for future jurisprudence on Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

Arrests and the Right to Know

Vihaan Kumar had been arrested by the Haryana police on serious allegations, including criminal breach of trust and forgery. However, what the police failed to do was inform him, at the time of arrest, of why he was being arrested—a mandate clearly articulated in both Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC.

The police argued that they had informed his wife, and that the remand papers and case diary mentioned the charges. But the Court rightly held that no procedural record can substitute the constitutional requirement of informing the accused directly and immediately. The right to be told the grounds of arrest is not a mere technicality—it is the first and most essential safeguard against arbitrary detention. Anything less, the Court warned, would be a direct assault on the dignity and liberty of the individual.

Shackled to a Hospital Bed: A Blow to Human Dignity

One of the most disturbing aspects of the case was the revelation that Vihaan Kumar was handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed while undergoing treatment. The Supreme Court did not mince words—it condemned the act as inhuman, illegal, and utterly violative of Article 21.

This part of the judgment serves as a stinging rebuke to the law enforcement culture that often confuses custody with cruelty. The Court reminded the state that even an accused person is entitled to humane treatment. Shackling a person undergoing medical treatment is not just a procedural lapse—it is a violation of their inherent dignity.

A Constitutionally Invalid Arrest

In a striking conclusion, the Court held that an arrest made in violation of Article 22(1) is unconstitutional from the very beginning. This has deep implications. It means that subsequent remand orders, investigations, or chargesheets cannot cure the original illegality. This ruling places the onus squarely on the police to act within the bounds of constitutional procedure.

Liberty Cannot Wait for Trials

Importantly, the Court ordered Vihaan Kumar’s immediate release, holding that continued detention based on an unconstitutional arrest would be a gross miscarriage of justice. However, the Court also maintained balance—it directed Kumar to cooperate with the investigation, attend court proceedings, and furnish bail bonds. This reflects the judiciary’s nuanced approach: protect liberty without obstructing the criminal justice process.

Guiding the Future: Institutional Accountability

The judgment goes beyond individual relief. It mandates that the State of Haryana issue detailed guidelines to prevent such violations in the future. This is not merely a judicial reprimand—it is a call for systemic reform. Across the country, state police forces must now revisit their arrest protocols and training manuals. Arbitrary arrests, vague FIRs, and disrespect for due process must give way to a culture of constitutional policing.

Conclusion: A Resounding Victory for the Rule of Law

Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana is more than a judicial victory for one man—it is a restatement of the values that define India’s constitutional democracy. The Court has reminded all institutions that liberty is not an administrative inconvenience. It is the very foundation of our legal order.

In holding the State accountable, in demanding due process, and in rejecting dehumanizing police conduct, the Supreme Court has done what every great constitutional court must do— stand between the citizen and the excesses of the State. The judgment is a triumph for rights, a warning to overreach, and a guidepost for justice.