Article 22(1) safeguards on arrest grounds cannot be cured by a mechanical remand order.

Article 22(1) requires a person arrested without warrant to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest and to be enabled to consult counsel. Where the material did not show that the detenus were told the true basis of their custody, that omission rendered the detention unconstitutional. A routine and mechanical remand order did not cure the initial illegality, because it could not validate an arrest made in breach of the mandatory constitutional safeguard. The detention was therefore illegal, and the arrested persons were entitled to immediate release.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detenus were entitled to release for non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution inasmuch as they were not informed of the grounds of arrest and the remand orders did not cure the illegality.

Analysis: The constitutional protection under Article 22(1) requires that a person arrested without warrant be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest and be enabled to consult counsel. The material before the Court did not show that the arrested persons were informed of the true basis of their custody, and the return did not displace their assertion to the contrary. The remand orders were found to be routine and mechanical, and therefore incapable of curing the constitutional infirmity flowing from the initial arrest and detention.

Conclusion: The detention was held to be illegal for breach of Article 22(1), and the arrested persons were entitled to immediate release.

Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with Article 22(1) is mandatory, and illegal detention resulting from failure to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is not cured by a mechanical remand order.

---