The Supreme Court has ruled that investigating agencies cannot keep a person in custody without formally recording an arrest and then use the delay to get around the constitutional requirement of producing
an accused before a magistrate within 24 hours.
In an important ruling on personal liberty on Thursday, the court held that the 24-hour period must be calculated from the moment a person’s liberty is effectively curtailed through detention, and not from the time the police officially record the arrest.
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar said the Constitution does not recognise any artificial distinction between arrest and detention to create a buffer period during which a person can be held without judicial oversight.
The ruling, in Sujit Das vs Union of India, addresses a crucial question concerning the scope of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, which requires a person arrested and detained in custody to be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours. The only period that can be excluded from this calculation is the time necessary to travel from the place of arrest to the magistrate’s court.
What Was The Case?
The case arose from the detention of four people in a drug smuggling investigation in Tripura, involving the seizure of 11.03 kg of yaba tablets under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The four men were detained at around 2pm on September 29, 2025, during search and seizure operations. However, their formal arrest was recorded only at 11am the following day.
The investigating agency maintained that the 24-hour period for producing them before a magistrate should be calculated from the time of their formal arrest. The accused, however, argued that their detention had begun much earlier and that the authorities could not exclude that period from the constitutional deadline.
The Supreme Court accepted the accused’s argument, holding that the clock had started ticking at 2pm on September 29, when they were first placed under the control and custody of the search team. They should, therefore, have been produced before a magistrate by 2pm on September 30.
However, they were produced only at 4.45pm on September 30, beyond the constitutionally mandated deadline. The court held that their continued detention without judicial oversight violated Article 22(2) and ordered their immediate release.
Why Did The Supreme Court Intervene?
The distinction between detention and formal arrest can have significant consequences for a person’s fundamental rights.
In practice, investigating agencies may detain a person during questioning, search or seizure operations without immediately recording a formal arrest. If the period of such detention is excluded while calculating the 24-hour deadline, the authorities could effectively hold someone for longer than the Constitution permits before bringing them before a magistrate.
The Supreme Court said such an interpretation would undermine the very protection Article 22(2) was intended to provide.
The bench observed that the Constitution does not permit a situation in which a person’s liberty is curtailed for investigative purposes but the individual is not formally shown as arrested, creating what it described as an unconstitutional buffer zone.
It also flagged the risk of custodial violence, noting that serious human rights violations often take place during investigations, when agencies may deliberately avoid recording an arrest or describe the deprivation of liberty as prolonged interrogation.
The court referred to earlier judicial recognition of custodial violence and stressed that constitutional safeguards must apply from the point at which a person is actually taken into custody, rather than from a later procedural entry in police records.
What Does The Constitution Say About The 24-Hour Rule?
Article 22(2) of the Constitution provides that every person who is arrested and detained in custody must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest. The time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate’s court is excluded.
The safeguard is intended to ensure that the police cannot exercise unchecked control over a person’s liberty and that continued custody is brought under judicial scrutiny.
The Supreme Court clarified that the words ‘arrested’ and ‘detained’ in Article 22(2) cannot be interpreted separately to exclude the period of detention before a formal arrest is recorded. It also pointed to Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which carries forward the restriction under the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure against detention without a warrant beyond a reasonable period and, in any case, beyond 24 hours without a magistrate’s authority.
The court said the 24-hour limit is not a licence to detain someone for the entire period. The detention must also be reasonable in the circumstances of the case, and magistrates must examine whether that requirement has been met while considering remand.
What Changes After The Ruling?
The judgment places greater responsibility on investigating agencies to accurately account for the time from which a person’s liberty is curtailed. Merely recording an arrest at a later stage will not reset the constitutional clock.
It also puts the onus on magistrates to verify when the person was actually detained, rather than relying solely on the time of formal arrest mentioned in police records. They must record the actual date and time of detention and examine whether the constitutional deadline has been followed.
The Supreme Court also disapproved of earlier rulings by the Orissa, Madras and Kerala High Courts that had permitted the period of detention before formal arrest to be excluded while calculating the 24-hour deadline.
The larger significance of the ruling is that the protection against prolonged custody cannot depend on the terminology or paperwork used by investigating agencies. What matters is when a person’s freedom was actually taken away.
