24-hour arrest deadline begins from the moment of detention, rules SC

• The Supreme Court has ruled that the 24-hour constitutional deadline for producing an arrested person before a magistrate begins from the moment he is detained and not from the time the police formally makes the arrest.

• If such detention continues beyond 24 hours before the person is produced before a magistrate, he shall be forthwith released from custody, it said.

• The ruling came from a bench of justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar in an appeal by three accused persons who had challenged the denial of their bail plea by the Tripura High Court in connection with a case registered under various provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Article 22(2) of the Constitution

• The entire case revolves around interpretation of clause (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. 

• Article 22 provides for protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.

• While clauses (4) to (7) of Article 22 of the Constitution deal with preventive detention, clause (3) thereof clarifies that clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22 shall not apply to any person who, for the time being is an enemy alien or to any person who is arrested or detained under any preventive detention law.

• Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22 apply to cases of arrest other than preventive detention. 

• Article 22(1) says that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.

• Article 22(2) says that every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be  produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.

• The Supreme Court noted that the only period which is permitted to be deducted from the 24 hours mandate is the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate. The Constitution does not permit any other time period to be excluded from the 24 hours period. 

• The 24 hours rule mandated under Article 22(2) is intended to prevent unlawful detention and custodial abuse.

• In D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court acknowledged the prevalence of custodial violence and abuse of police power in the country and observed that notwithstanding constitutional and statutory safeguards, growing incidents of torture and deaths in police custody was a disturbing factor. 

• The apex court recorded that experience shows that worst violations of human rights take place during the course of investigation when the police with a view to secure evidence or confession often resorts to third degree methods including torture and adopts techniques of screening arrest by either not recording the arrest or describing the deprivation of liberty merely as a prolonged interrogation. 

• This compelled the Supreme Court to issue a slew of guidelines, including permitting the presence of the counsel of the arrestee at some point of time during the interrogation to deter the police from using third degree methods during interrogation.

Definition of arrest

• In Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar vs State of Maharashtra (2025), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court examined how the word ‘arrest’ was derived from the French word ‘arreter’ which means ‘to stop or stay’.

• It held that arrest commences with the restraint placed on the liberty of the person and not from the time of ‘arrest’ recorded by the arresting officer. 

• It continues until the person so restrained is either released from custody or brought before a magistrate.

• In Biswajit Mandal vs Inspector, Narcotics Control Bureau (2025), the Kerala High Court observed that the expression ‘arrested and detained’ appearing therein is often misused by the police authorities to assert that the time starts only from the actual time of arrest. 

• The High Court declared that the period of 24 hours to produce an accused before the magistrate commences not when the actual time of arrest is recorded by the police but runs from the time when the accused was effectively detained or his liberty was curtailed.

Arrested and detained in custody

• The Supreme Court said it is important to note that the expression — arrested and detained in custody — is conjunctive and not disjunctive.

• Had it been disjunctive, two separate meanings could have been assigned to the two words. But the expression being joint and conjunctive, the two words appearing therein would mean one and the same thing.

• The words ‘arrested’ and ‘detained’ appearing in Article 22(2) are synonymous. 

• 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.