The Supreme Court examined whether the grounds of arrest met the standards required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Referring to the precedent set in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), the Court reiterated that grounds of arrest must be clear and specific—not merely a citation of legal provisions—and must be communicated effectively in a language understood by the arrestee. Additionally, such grounds must be provided "as soon as may be" to allow the individual to seek legal remedies. In this case, the Court found that the arresting authorities had listed detailed allegations, including conspiracy, receipt of kickbacks, and wrongful gains. Therefore, it held that the requirements under Article 22(1) were met and that the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were duly complied with. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.