Failure to furnish grounds of arrest in a language known to a foreign national vitiates the remand.

The petitioners, two Nigerian nationals, were arrested on 12-05-2024 at 7:00 p.m. for alleged possession of commercial quantities of MDMA (400g) and Cocaine (100g) under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.

Investigation revealed both petitioners had been overstaying in India for nearly a decade using forged passports and visas.

They were produced before the Magistrate on 13-05-2024 at 7:15 p.m. (a 15-minute delay beyond the 24-hour mandate) and remanded to judicial custody.

The petitioners challenged the arrest and remand, contending they were not provided the "grounds of arrest" in writing in a language they understood.

The Court primarily applied Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be detained without being informed of the grounds for such arrest.

It relied on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which established that grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing.

and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, which clarified that grounds must be effectively communicated in a language the arrestee understands.

The Court also referenced Section 360 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 321 CrPC) regarding withdrawal from prosecution, and the Model Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 25-11-2025 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs concerning the deportation of foreign nationals misusing legal processes.

The Court observed that while the remand application mentioned the reasons for arrest, this was the first instance such information was recorded, and it was written in Kannada (the vernacular), which the Nigerian petitioners did not understand.

Applying the "person-centric" (not "citizen-centric") doctrine, the Court held that Article 22(1) protections extend to foreign nationals, excluding only enemy aliens.

The Court reasoned that the constitutional mandate to inform the arrestee of the "grounds of arrest" is an unexceptional duty; providing them in a language the accused cannot comprehend renders the safeguard nugatory.

Although the offences under the NDPS Act were grave and the petitioners were illegal overstayers, the Court emphasized that constitutional discipline outweighs the severity of the crime in matters of arrest procedures.

The Court ordered the petitioners to be set at liberty but directed that they be immediately handed over to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) for deportation proceedings.

Furthermore, the Court directed the State of Karnataka to constitute District and State Level Screening Committees within four months to implement the Union Government's SOP for withdrawing prosecutions against foreign nationals to facilitate their deportation.