Parties and procedural roles: Mihir Rajesh Shah was the accused-appellant seeking bail or challenging custody in a serious criminal prosecution. The State of Maharashtra was the prosecuting respondent relying on the alleged offence, investigation and risk factors; the Court was deciding pre-trial liberty and procedural legality rather than finally determining guilt. Supreme Court proceedings generally describe the sides as petitioner/appellant and respondent, or accused and prosecution, rather than plaintiff and defendant. In a suo motu case or constitutional reference, the Court or President initiates the proceeding and governments, authorities and affected stakeholders assist or respond.

Detailed story and problem statement: Mihir Rajesh Shah appealed against Maharashtra challenging arrest in the Mumbai BMW hit-and-run prosecution. He argued that police failed to provide prompt written grounds in a language he understood; the State relied on oral information and case circumstances. The controversy became legally significant because the challenged action affected liberty, equality, institutional fairness, democratic accountability, property, family relations, professional rights or another protected interest. The side seeking relief said that the governing legal safeguards had not been honoured; the opposing side relied on its statutory power, the record and the need for workable administration or enforcement.

Procedural development: 2024 accident and arrest led to bail/arrest litigation; constitutional arrest issue reached the Supreme Court; judgment delivered 6 November 2025. The matter reached the Supreme Court as Crl.A. No. 2195/2025. Against this factual and procedural setting, the Court had to resolve: Must police furnish written grounds of arrest under BNSS Section 47 for every offence, and what is the consequence of breach?

Shah invoked Article 22(1) and parity with written-ground safeguards developed under special laws. Maharashtra argued ordinary criminal arrests require only communication, not a written document.

Arguments supporting relief: The petitioner, appellant, accused or assisting party seeking intervention relied on Written grounds of arrest; prospective operation; personal liberty, the guarantees in Articles 21 and 22(1), and the language and purpose of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 47; corresponding CrPC Section 50. That side argued that legal power is limited by fairness, relevant evidence, reasoned decision-making and proportionality. It asked the Court to examine the actual burden imposed and to grant effective relief rather than leave the alleged violation without a remedy.

Arguments opposing relief: The respondent government, regulator, prosecution, employer or private party relied on statutory competence, institutional autonomy, contractual or procedural rules, public interest, finality, administrative feasibility or the strength of the factual record, according to the nature of MIHIR RAJESH SHAH vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. It urged restraint and argued that the challenged outcome fell within lawful discretion or that the requirements for extraordinary Supreme Court intervention were not met.

Judicial comparison: The bench tested these positions against precedent, statutory ingredients, the evidentiary and procedural record, and consequences for similarly situated people or institutions. The controlling questions were: Must police furnish written grounds of arrest under BNSS Section 47 for every offence, and what is the consequence of breach?

The Court held that grounds must be supplied in writing, in a language understood, so the arrested person can consult counsel and seek bail. The general requirement was applied prospectively, while the individual arrest was examined on its record.

Reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court: The Court interpreted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 47; corresponding CrPC Section 50 consistently with Articles 21 and 22(1) and applied Written grounds of arrest; prospective operation; personal liberty. It examined jurisdiction and legislative or statutory authority, compliance with natural justice, relevance and sufficiency of the material, proportionality of the measure and the practical consequences of the proposed rule. Where appropriate, the Court distinguished merits from procedure, individual relief from general directions, and binding ratio from observations limited to the facts.

Result for the parties: The operative directions in Crl.A. No. 2195/2025 determine MIHIR RAJESH SHAH vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. The relief granted or refused, and any remand, bail condition, prospective operation, monitoring requirement, time limit, compensation rule or preservation of earlier proceedings, must be understood as part of the final outcome described above.

Broader legal significance: The ruling guides courts, legislatures, governments, investigators, regulators, employers or private parties confronting materially similar issues. Its scope remains subject to the qualifications expressed by the bench; where this summary and the signed decision differ, the official judgment and operative paragraphs are controlling.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 47; corresponding CrPC Section 50

Articles 21 and 22(1)

Written grounds of arrest; prospective operation; personal liberty