24-hr deadline starts from moment of detention, not formal arrest, says Supreme Court

New Delhi (TIP): In an important ruling expanding the scope and ambit of civil liberties, the Supreme Court on Thursday, Nov 5, ruled that the 24-hour constitutionally mandated deadline to produce an accused before a judicial magistrate runs from the time of his detention and not just from the time of his formal arrest by the police.
“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. We must adopt that interpretation which enhances and furthers the constitutional objective,” a Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar said.
Holding that the words “arrested” and “detained” appearing in clause (2) of Article 22 were synonymous, the Bench said, “Thus, the prescription of 24-hour 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.”
The verdict came on appeals filed by four persons challenging the Tripura High Court’s April 29 judgment denying them bail in a case under the NDPS Act. The accused were detained on September 29, 2025, at 2 pm as part of a search and seizure but were formally arrested the next day.
Setting aside the high court’s order, the top court held that they should have been produced before the magistrate within 24 hours from 2 pm on September 29. Noting that they were kept under detention for about 18 hours without any judicial oversight in violation of Article 22(2), the Bench ordered that they shall be produced before the jurisdictional Special Court within seven days from today and, thereafter, they shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate.
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Bhuyan said, “Article 22(2) does not sanction exclusion of the time taken for enquiry and investigation before the arresting authority could effect arrest of the detainee. This is beyond the mandate of Article 22(2) of the Constitution. Article 22(2) does not sanction creation of any buffer zone where the liberty of an individual is curtailed for investigating purposes but not formally shown as arrested.” Justice Bhuyan said, “Creation or contemplation of such buffer zone is unconstitutional. There cannot be any suspension or keeping in abeyance of the constitutional safeguards provided under clause (2) of Article 22 save and except what is provided thereunder.