Article 22 Safeguards Applies To Foreign Nationals Also, Grounds Of Arrest Must Be Communicated In A Language They Understand: Karnataka High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka, Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, set at liberty two Nigerian nationals accused in a narcotics case, holding that the constitutional protection under Article 22 — which guarantees the right to be informed of grounds of arrest — extends equally to foreign nationals on Indian soil, as the provision uses the expression "no person" rather than "citizen." The Court found that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the accused in a language known to them, rendering the arrest unlawful, and directed that upon release, they be handed over to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office for deportation proceedings.
The petitioners, two foreign nationals from Nigeria, approached the High Court challenging their arrest and judicial remand in connection with a criminal case registered for offences under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The prosecution alleged that the accused were engaged in selling narcotic substances including MDMA crystals and cocaine to customers such as software employees and college students. Acting on credible information, police officers conducted a raid and recovered 400 grams of MDMA crystals and 100 grams of cocaine from the accused. The petitioners were arrested at about 7.00 p.m. and produced before the Magistrate the following day at approximately 7.15 p.m., after which they were remanded to judicial custody.
The petitioners contended that the arrest and subsequent remand were illegal because the grounds of arrest were not communicated to them, particularly in a language understood by them. They also argued that they were produced before the Magistrate beyond the constitutionally permissible period of twenty-four hours. The State opposed the petition, submitting that the grounds of arrest had been furnished and acknowledged by the petitioners and that the Magistrate had recorded such compliance in the remand order. The Union of India, represented by the Deputy Solicitor General, also submitted that the petitioners were overstaying in India without valid documents and had entered the country on multiple visas under different identities.
The Court examined the constitutional requirement relating to communication of the grounds of arrest. It recorded that “Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India mandates furnishing of grounds of arrest to any accused.” The Court referred to several judgments of the Supreme Court and observed that the requirement is fundamental in nature. It stated that “Any individual arrested in connection with a penal offence must be informed of the grounds of such arrest. This requirement is not an empty formality, it is a constitutional imperative.”
The Court also addressed whether the protection under Article 22 extends to foreign nationals. It recorded that “Article 22 however is not so limited. It employs the expression ‘no person’, thereby expanding its protective umbrella beyond the confines of citizenship.” The Court further stated that “The term person is widest amplitude. It is inclusive and unqualified. It encompasses citizens and non-citizens alike and within its sweep falls even a foreign national.” On this basis, the Court observed that “the protection against arrest and detention embodied under Article 22 is person-centric, not citizen-centric.”
Considering the material on record, the Court examined the remand application and noted that the grounds of arrest had been communicated in the vernacular language. It recorded that “the afore-quoted remand application depicts that it was for the first time the grounds of arrest were made known to the petitioners, that too in a language not known to them.” The Court observed that “it ought to have been furnished in English, as the petitioners were foreign nationals who would understand English and not the vernacular.” It further stated that “furnishing of grounds of arrest cannot be a mere formality, only for the sake of furnishing.”
On the constitutional mandate, the Court recorded that “the mandate of the law is to furnish it immediately and in the language known to the accused or English language.” It concluded that “the petitioners thus are entitled to be set at liberty on the ground of non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest in a manner known to law.”
The Court also considered the status of the petitioners as foreign nationals overstaying in India and noted that they had remained in the country without valid documents for more than a decade. In this context, it examined the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Government of India concerning withdrawal of prosecution against foreign nationals to facilitate deportation. The Court recorded that the SOP was introduced after authorities observed that certain foreigners were “misusing the legal process of the country by deliberately implicating themselves in criminal proceedings, so as to thwart or delay deportation and thereby prolong their stay within the territory of India.”
The Court directed that “Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The petitioners are entitled to be set at liberty on the grounds of arrest not being served upon them in a manner known to law. The petitioners on them being set at liberty be handed over to the FRRO of the jurisdiction, to take further steps against the petitioners for overstaying, without any valid documents, for more than a decade, in terms of the SOP.”
“The State shall constitute the State Level Screening Committee/District Level Screening Committee, as is found in the SOP and report such constitution to this Court within 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri M.R. Balakrishna, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor for; Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, Deputy Solicitor General of India
Case Title: Emeka James Iwoba @ Austin Noso Iwoba & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No.11347 of 2025
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
