Follow us on Google News
The Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional 24-hour deadline for producing an arrested person before a magistrate must be calculated from the moment the person is first detained, and not from the later time when police formally record the arrest.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar held that authorities cannot create an artificial distinction between detention and arrest while applying Article 22(2) of the Constitution.
The Court said any interpretation allowing police to exclude the period of detention before a formal arrest would weaken the constitutional protection meant to prevent unlawful custody.
24-Hour Clock Begins From Actual Detention
Article 22(2) requires every person arrested and detained in custody to be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours.
The Supreme Court clarified that this period begins from the actual point at which the person is detained.
The Court held that the view that the 24-hour period starts only after a formal arrest is recorded is inconsistent with Article 22(2) and Section 56 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
This means police cannot detain a person for questioning or investigation and later start a fresh 24-hour period by formally recording the arrest.
Investigation Time Cannot Be Excluded
The Court also clarified what can and cannot be excluded while calculating the deadline.
Only the time reasonably required to travel from the place of arrest to the magistrate’s court can be excluded.
Time spent on inquiry, investigation, search or seizure before a formal arrest cannot be left out of the calculation.
The ruling therefore places greater importance on the actual time when a person’s liberty is first restrained.
Detention Beyond 24 Hours Can Lead to Release
The Supreme Court further held that a person detained beyond the permissible 24-hour period without being produced before a magistrate must be released forthwith.
The Court said compliance with the 24-hour rule is not merely a procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard.
It also stressed that authorities must ensure that the duration of detention remains reasonable even when it falls within the maximum 24-hour period.
The ruling therefore requires courts to examine not only whether the outer time limit has been crossed, but also whether the detention was justified in the circumstances.
Magistrates Must Verify Actual Time of Detention
The Bench placed specific responsibilities on judicial magistrates when an arrested person is produced before them.
Magistrates must record the actual date and time of detention and independently verify whether the constitutional requirement has been followed.
They must also examine whether the total period of detention was reasonable.
If the detention is found to be excessive or contrary to the constitutional requirement, the magistrate can decline to grant remand.
The ruling places the responsibility on courts to verify the police version rather than relying only on the formally recorded arrest time.
Supreme Court Disapproves Contrary High Court Views
The Supreme Court also disapproved earlier interpretations that had treated formal arrest as the starting point for calculating the 24-hour period.
The Bench referred to decisions of the Orissa High Court in the Aryaman Pattanaik case, the Madras High Court in the Kannan case and the Kerala High Court in the Arun K Thomas case.
It made clear that detention before formal arrest cannot be excluded while computing the constitutional deadline.
The ruling establishes a broader national standard for calculating the period of custody under Article 22(2).
Constitutional Safeguard Against Prolonged Custody
The purpose of Article 22(2) is to prevent a person from being kept in police custody for an extended period without judicial supervision.
By requiring the clock to begin from actual detention, the Supreme Court has closed the possibility of authorities extending custody by delaying the formal recording of arrest.
The judgment also strengthens the role of magistrates in examining how long a person was actually deprived of liberty before being brought before the court.
The detailed judgment is awaited, but the principle stated by the Bench is clear: the constitutional 24-hour protection begins when detention starts, and not when police choose to formally record the arrest.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
