Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi
New Delhi, Nov 5: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the constitutional 24-hour deadline for producing an arrested person before a magistrate begins from the moment the person's liberty is curtailed and not from the time the police formally record the arrest. The ruling is aimed at preventing investigating agencies from keeping individuals in custody without judicial oversight by delaying the formal arrest.
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar held that there can be no artificial distinction between 'arrest' and 'detention' while interpreting Article 22(2) of the Constitution. It said any interpretation that excludes the period of detention preceding formal arrest would undermine the constitutional protection against arbitrary detention.
"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 the BNSS," the bench observed.
The judgment clarifies that the 24-hour period starts as soon as a person's liberty is effectively curtailed, including when the individual is intercepted and detained by law enforcement authorities. The only period that can be excluded while calculating the deadline is the time reasonably required to travel from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court.
Time spent on inquiry, investigation, search or seizure before the formal arrest cannot be excluded, the court said. It also made clear that even a person detained for search and seizure operations must be produced before a magistrate within the constitutionally prescribed period.
The ruling arose from appeals filed by four persons arrested in a narcotics case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act in Tripura. They had been detained on September 29, 2025, at around 2 pm during search and seizure operations involving 11.03 kg of yaba tablets. However, their formal arrests were recorded only at 11 am the following day.
The Supreme Court held that the 24-hour period had begun when the four were first detained and that they should have been produced before a magistrate within that period. Their continued detention without judicial oversight for approximately 18 hours beyond the permissible limit violated Article 22(2), warranting their immediate release. The bench's ruling also addressed the Tripura High Court's decision rejecting their bail pleas.
Article 22(2) of the Constitution provides that every person arrested and detained in custody must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court. It further prohibits detention beyond that period without the authority of a magistrate.
The bench disapproved of contrary interpretations adopted by the Orissa High Court in the Aryaman Pattanaik case, the Kerala High Court in the Arun K Thomas case and the Madras High Court in the Kannan case. It held that the period of detention before formal arrest cannot be excluded while computing the constitutional deadline.
The Supreme Court also emphasised that compliance with the 24-hour limit does not automatically make every period of detention reasonable. Detaining authorities must ensure that custody is justified and does not continue longer than necessary, even within the constitutionally permitted period.
The bench directed judicial magistrates to independently verify compliance with the constitutional requirement. Magistrates must record the actual date and time from which a person's liberty was curtailed and examine whether the individual was produced within the prescribed period.
They must also assess whether the duration of detention is reasonable in the circumstances and can refuse remand if the detention is found to be excessive. If a person remains in detention beyond the permissible 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate, the person must be released forthwith.
The judgment reinforces the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Articles 21 and 22 and places greater responsibility on investigating agencies and magistrates to ensure that detention is subject to timely judicial scrutiny.