New Delhi: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court Thursday ruled that the 24-hour constitutional deadline for producing an arrested person before a magistrate begins from the moment of detention, not from the time the police formally make the arrest.
Holding that there can be no artificial distinction between ‘arrest’ and ‘detention’ for the purpose of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar said any interpretation allowing the police to exclude the period of pre-arrest detention would be contrary to the constitutional mandate.
“The prescription of 24 hours time period would commence the moment a person is detained by the arresting authority suspecting him to have committed an offence, when his liberty is effectively curtailed. To that extent, the words appearing in clause (2) of Article 22, i.e. ‘arrested’ and ‘detained’ are synonymous,” it said.
“Any attempt to draw an artificial distinction between ‘arrest’ and ‘detention’ would dilute or negate the fundamental protection guaranteed by the Constitution under clause (2) of Article 22. Such an endeavour should be avoided,” the bench said.
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, it added. The SC also referred to custodial violence during investigations, describing it as one of the “worst violations of human rights”. It said such violations occur when the police, in an attempt to extract information or a confession, resort to third-degree methods.
“The endeavour of this court has always been to eliminate custodial violence which unfortunately takes place during the time when a person is under detention and not shown as formally arrested, in the process delaying production before the magistrate. Custodial violence is an unfortunate reality of our country and is judicially acknowledged,” the bench said.
The SC’s judgement came in an appeal by three accused persons who had challenged the denial of their bail plea by the Tripura HC in connection with a case registered under NDPS Act. In this case, the accused were taken into custody around 2.30 pm September 29, 2025, when the investigating agency allegedly recovered 11.03 kg of methamphetamine tablets from them.
The court noted that their arrest was recorded only at 11:15 am September 30, 2025 and were brought before a magistrate at 4.45 pm September 30, more than 24 hours after they were first detained. The SC noted that the investigating agency had not explained the gap of over 18 hours between the conclusion of the search and seizure and the formal arrest.
The SC disapproved of the views taken by the Orissa HC in the Aryaman Pattanaik case, the Madras HC in the Kannan case and the Kerala HC in the Arun K Thomas case, which had permitted the period of detention before formal arrest to be excluded while calculating the 24-hour deadline.
“In the event such detention continues beyond 24 hours, before the person is produced before the magistrate, he shall be forthwith released from custody,” it said.
