The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the constitutional 24-hour deadline for producing an arrested person before a magistrate begins from the moment their liberty is effectively curtailed, and not from the time the police formally record the arrest. Holding that there can be no artificial distinction between 'arrest' and 'detention', the court said any period of detention before formal arrest must also be included while calculating the deadline under Article 22(2) of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar held that excluding the period of pre-arrest detention from the 24-hour calculation would violate the constitutional guarantee against detention without judicial oversight.
"The view that 24 hours begin only from the formal arrest is contrary to the constitutional mandate of Article 22(2) and Section 56 of BNSS," the bench observed.
"Article 22(2) does not sanction exclusion of the time taken for inquiry or investigation before the arresting authority could effect arrest of the detainee. This is beyond the mandate of clause (2) of Article 22. The only exception the Constitution itself provides is the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate," the court said.
It further declared that the distinction between the completion of search and seizure and the subsequent formal recording of arrest could not be used to postpone the commencement of the constitutional deadline. Such an interpretation, it held, was not only legally unsustainable but also unconstitutional.
The bench rejected the argument that a person held briefly for investigative purposes cannot be considered arrested. It emphasised that a fundamental right cannot be temporarily suspended merely because the police characterise the period as detention rather than arrest.
Detention and arrest cannot be treated differently
Interpreting Article 22(2), the Supreme Court noted that the provision refers to "every person who is arrested and detained in custody". The bench held that the expressions 'arrested' and 'detained' must be read jointly and conjunctively, as the Constitution does not recognise detention divorced from arrest.
The court cautioned that creating an artificial distinction between the two expressions would raise difficult questions about who determines what constitutes a short investigative detention and when such detention becomes an arrest.
The bench also disapproved of the legal interpretations adopted by the Orissa High Court in Aryaman Pattanaik, the Kerala High Court in Arun K Thomas and the Madras High Court in Kannan. These judgments had held that the period of detention before formal arrest could be excluded while calculating the 24-hour deadline under Article 22(2).
The Supreme Court declared that these decisions did not lay down the correct law on the interpretation of the constitutional provision.
Instead, it approved the view taken by the Kerala High Court in Biswajith Mandal, which held that the 24-hour period begins when a person's liberty is effectively curtailed, rather than when the police formally record the arrest.
The court also highlighted the need for effective judicial supervision of detention, particularly in view of instances of custodial violence. It observed that investigating agencies could otherwise circumvent constitutional safeguards by keeping individuals in custody for prolonged questioning without formally recording their arrests.
Four NDPS accused ordered to be released
The judgment in Sujit Das v Union of India arose from appeals filed by four accused persons challenging a Tripura High Court order denying them bail in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The accused were detained on September 29, 2025, at 2 pm during a search and seizure operation. However, their formal arrests were recorded only at 11 am on September 30, 2025.
The Supreme Court held that the 24-hour period had begun at 2 pm on September 29, when their liberty was first curtailed. They should, therefore, have been produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of that time.
The bench noted that the four accused had remained in detention for approximately 18 hours without judicial oversight. They were eventually produced before a judicial magistrate at 4.45 pm on September 30, beyond the constitutional deadline.
Holding that this violated Article 22(2), the court declared their continued detention illegal and unconstitutional and ordered their immediate release.
The case involved the seizure of 11.03 kg of yaba tablets, a form of methamphetamine. While rejecting the accused persons' bail pleas, the Tripura High Court had relied on the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which must be satisfied before bail can be granted in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances.
The High Court had also rejected their argument concerning the alleged violation of arrest procedure under Section 36 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). It relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Punjab v Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, which held that prolonged incarceration alone cannot override the statutory restrictions governing bail under the NDPS Act.
In its latest ruling, the Supreme Court reiterated that fundamental rights under Article 21 cannot be diluted by the stringent bail provisions of a special statute. It also expressed reservations about observations in the Sukhwinder Singh judgment concerning the relationship between the right to speedy trial and the restrictions under the NDPS Act, without overruling the earlier decision.
Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim, assisted by advocate Ali Asghar Rahim, appeared for the appellants before the Supreme Court.
Magistrates must record actual time of detention
In its conclusions, pronounced by Justice Bhuyan, the Supreme Court laid down seven directions to ensure compliance with Article 22(2) and prevent authorities from circumventing the constitutional safeguard through delayed formal arrests.
The court clarified that the 24-hour period for producing a detained person before a magistrate must be calculated from the date and time when their liberty is curtailed, irrespective of when the formal arrest is recorded.
If detention continues beyond 24 hours without the person being produced before a magistrate, the individual must be released forthwith. The only period that can be excluded from the calculation is the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court.
The bench further directed detaining authorities to ensure that detention does not continue beyond a reasonable period, even within the constitutionally permitted 24-hour window. This requirement must be assessed in the circumstances of each case, in accordance with Section 58 of the BNSS.
At the time of producing an accused person before a magistrate, the police must disclose the actual date and time when the person's liberty was curtailed. The magistrate, in turn, is duty-bound to record these details and independently examine whether the constitutional deadline has been observed.
If the magistrate finds that the 24-hour limit has been breached, the person must be released immediately.
The court also made it clear that compliance with the 24-hour deadline alone would not automatically justify continued detention. Magistrates must independently assess whether the period of custody, even if within the prescribed limit, was reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If the detention is found to have exceeded what was reasonably necessary, the magistrate may refuse remand.
The Supreme Court's ruling thus makes clear that constitutional protection against prolonged detention without judicial oversight cannot be bypassed by delaying the formal recording of an arrest.