Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 48
Obligation of person making arrest to inform about arrest, etc., to relative or friend
, to relative or friend.—(1) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Sanhita shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his relatives, friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information and also to the designated police officer in the district.
(2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person of his rights under sub-section (1) as soon as he is brought to the police station.
(3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept in the police station in such form as the State Government may, by rules, provide.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested person.
Why this exists
This provision responds to long-standing concerns about secret detentions and custodial abuse in India. It builds on the Supreme Court's landmark guidelines in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), which required police to notify a friend or relative of an arrest to prevent unacknowledged custody and protect against torture or disappearance. The earlier Code of Criminal Procedure incorporated this as Section 50A, and the BNSS carries it forward as Section 48, adding magisterial oversight to make the safeguard enforceable in practice.
How courts read it
The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) first laid down that arrested persons have a right to have someone informed of their arrest and whereabouts, treating this as part of the constitutional protection against arbitrary detention under Articles 21 and 22. Courts have since treated failure to comply as a serious lapse that can affect the legality of custody and support claims of custodial misconduct, though it does not automatically invalidate an arrest. The magistrate's duty to verify compliance (sub-section 4) was designed to make this a real check rather than a paper formality.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Police only need to inform someone if the arrested person specifically demands it in a formal way.
Fact: The law requires police to act 'forthwith' on their own duty to inform a relative, friend, or nominated person — it's an automatic obligation, not something that depends on a formal request. - Myth: If police forget to inform anyone, the arrest itself becomes illegal.
Fact: Courts have generally treated non-compliance as a serious violation that can lead to accountability or affect how custody is viewed, but it does not by itself automatically nullify the arrest.