ARTICLE 22

ARTICLE 22

• (1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being

informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of such arrest nor shall he be
denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of
his choice.
• (2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be
produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four
hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the
place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be
detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a
magistrate
 • No person who is arrested shall be detained in
cutody without being informed, as soon as may
be, of the grounds of such arrest
R ULE 1:
INFORM ATION ABOUT • Section 50(1) Cr.P.C provides, ‘every police officer
GR OUNDS OF ARR EST or other person arresting any person without a
warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full
particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or
other grounds for such arrest.
 • The person arrested has a right to consult a legal
RULE 2: RIGHT advisor of his choice as soon as he is arrested also to
TO CONSULT A have an interview with his lawyer out of the hearing
of the police.
LAWYER • Article 39 A – Legal Aid
 • Section 57 Cr.P.C - Person arrested not to be
detained more than twenty- four hours. No police
officer shall detain in custody a person arrested
without warrant for a longer period than under all the
RULE 3: circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such
PRODUCTION OF period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a
THE ARRESTED Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty- four
PERSON BEFORE A hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey
MAGISTRATE from the place of arrest to the Magistrate' s Court.
• Section 167 Cr.P.C – Procedure to be completed
within twenty four hours
R U L E 4 : N O P E R S O N I S TO • Khatri v. State of Bihar: It is constitutional
B E D E TA I N E D I N requirement to produce an arrest person before a
CUSTODY BEYOND 24 judicial magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest must
HOURS WITHOUT THE
be strictly and scrupulously observed
AUTHORITY OF A
M A G I S T R AT E
 VIMAL KISHORE V. STATE OF UP
AIR 1956 ALL.59

• The petitioner is one of the General Secretaries of Suti Mill Mazdoor Sabha, Kanpur.
• The workers of textile mills at Kanpur went on strike from the early part of May, 1955. The strike lasted for several weeks.
The petitioner was arrested on 28-4-55 but was released on 11-5-1955. The petitioner was again arrested by the police on 18-
5-1955. He was produced before a Magistrate on 19-5-1955.
•  Three points were raised on behalf of the petitioner.
• The first point was that he was detained in police custody for more than twenty-four hours before he was produced before a
Magistrate. It was urged that the detention was in contravention of Clause (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution.
• The second point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 is ultra vires the
Constitution. The learned counsel argued that Section 7 of the Act prohibits peaceful picketing, and such prohibition is
unconstitutional.
• The last point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the ground for the petitioner's arrest was not communicated to
him as required by Clause (1) of Article 22 of the Constitution.
• Court held that Article 22 is an important fundamental right and when clubbed with Article
21, it gains more prominence.
• Judgment: applicant's detention is illegal, because he was not informed of the reasons for
his arrest as soon as it was possible to do so and that he should be forthwith released from
custody.
• But, there is no question of quashing the proceedings pending against him, because
whether he has done the act alleged to have been done by him and whether it amounts to
an offence punishable under Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act are questions which
will be decided during the trial and cannot be decided in advance of it.
 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH V. SHOBHARAM
AIR 1966 SC 1910

• On a complaint of trespass the police registered a case against the respondents under S. 447 of the Penal
Code.
• The respondents were later arrested by the police and released on the execution of surety bonds whereby the
sureties undertook to produce them as required by the police. The case against the respondents was thereafter
put up before the Nyaya Panchayat, a court established under the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act, 1949.
In ,'hat court, fresh bonds were executed by sureties on behalf of the respondents to ensure their presence
during the trial. The Nyaya Panchayat, after trial, convicted and sentenced the respondents to a fine of Rs. 75
each. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani. The respondents then moved
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in revision which set aside the conviction. Hence the present appeal.
• The court held that the rights guaranteed under Article 22 is available only to an arrested person, but not to a
person who is going through the stage of trial.
 RE MADHU LIMAYE
AIR 1969 SC 1014

• Madhu Limaye, Member of Lok Sabha, and several other persons were arrested on November 6, 1968, at Lakhisarai
Railway Station near Monghyr. On the same date Madhu Limaye addressed a petition in the form of a letter to this
court under Article 32 of the Constitution mentioning that he along with his companions had been arrested but had
not been communicated the reasons or the grounds for arrest. It was stated that the arrested persons had been merely
told that the arrests had been made "under sections which were bailable".
• Madhu Limaye, who has addressed arguments in person, has raised, inter alia, the following main contentions : 
• 1. The arrests on November 6, 1968, were illegal inasmuch as they had been effected by Police Officers for
offences which were non-cognizable. 
• 2. There was a violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. 
• 3. The orders for remand were bad and vitiated. 
• 4. The arrests were effected for extraneous considerations and were actuated by mala fides.
• Issue: Whether any proper cause has been shown in the return for declining the prayer of
Madhu Limaye and other arrested persons for releasi ng them on the ground that there was
non-compliance with the provisions of Art. 22(1) of the Constitution.
• Judgment: Once it is shown that the arrests made by the police officers were illegal, it
was necessary for the State to establish that at the stage of remand the Magistrate directed
detention in jail custody after applying his mind to all relevant matters.
 H U S S AI N A R A KH ATO ON & OR S V S H O M E
S E C R E TA RY, S TAT E O F B I HA R
1979 SCR (3) 532

• Release of under-trials in the State of Bihar is the core issue in the case
• The case is mainly related to right to speedy and fair trial
• Article 22 is inserted into the Constitution to keep a check on the arbitrary exercise of
power by the police while arresting and detaining a person.
• After Maneka Gandhi Judgement, Article 21 and also Article 22 includes principles of
natural justice under its ambit.
• Hence, the words in Article 22 to be interpreted to include principles of natural justice, i.e.,
fair, unbiased and reasonable procedure while arresting a person
 KHATRI V. • Right to free legal aid is an essential ingredient of
STATE OF reasonable, fair and just procedure for a person
BIHAR accused of an offence and it is implicit in the
guarantee of Article 21
AIR 1983 SC 378
JOGINDER KUMAR • Article 22 includes right to be informed about
V. STATE OF UP the arrest of a person to his next friend or
(1994) 4 SCC 260 relative or family member
 D.K.BASU V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
(1997)

• The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal laid down some basic guidelines
as a preventive measures to be observed in all cases of arrest and detention with a view to
prevent custodial violence:
• The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee
should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designation
and their particulars must be recorded in a register.