Polity · 15 Aug 2026

Article 22(1) arrest safeguards Vihaan Kumar

Consider the following statements:

  1. Article 22(1) requires that the grounds of arrest be communicated specifically to a relative or family member of the arrested person.
  2. Under the Vihaan Kumar (2025) ruling, informing a relative of the arrested person about the grounds of arrest does not, by itself, satisfy the requirement of Article 22(1).
  3. Section 41 of the CrPC, now re-enacted as Section 35 of the BNSS, governs arrest without warrant.
  4. The Arnesh Kumar (2014) guidelines discourage routine arrest for offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more.
AOnly one
BOnly two
COnly three
DAll four
This question is based on: A Phone Call to Your Relative Doesn't Count: What Vihaan Kumar Actually Changed
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 15 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Supreme Court's Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) ruling reinforced arrest safeguards under Article 22(1) as India's criminal procedure transitions from the CrPC to the BNSS, 2023, building on the Arnesh Kumar (2014) guidelines and the "Golden Triangle" of Articles 14, 19 and 21.

Why for UPSC

This format tests precise recall of overlapping arrest-safeguard provisions (Article 22, CrPC-to-BNSS renumbering, Arnesh Kumar thresholds) - exactly the kind of adjacent-but-distinct static facts UPSC likes to mix to test genuine depth over surface familiarity.

Prelims summary

Article 22(1)'s duty to communicate arrest grounds is owed to the arrestee alone, not a relative (Vihaan Kumar, 2025); Section 41 CrPC/Section 35 BNSS governs arrest without warrant; Arnesh Kumar (2014) discourages routine arrest for offences under seven years' imprisonment.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.