The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against the artificial distinction between 'arrest' and 'detention', and held that the 24-hour period for production before the Magistrate, in terms of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, will run from the period of 'detention' and not just from the time of formal arrest.

"The view that 24 hours begin only from the formal arrest is contrary to the constitutional mandate of Article 22(2) and 56 of BNSS," the bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar ruled.

"Article 22(2) does not sanction exclusion of the time taken for inquiry or investigation before the arresting authority could effect arrest of the detainee. This is beyond the mandate of clause (2) of Article 22. The only exception the Constitution itself provides is the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate," the Court pronounced.

"Therefore, the dichotomy that the period of 24 hours for the purposes of clause (2) of Article 22 commences from the completion of such search and seizure and only from the time of arrest recorded by the arresting authority is not only unsustainable in law but is entirely unconstitutional," the Court stated.

The Court disagreed with the view that detention for a brief period is not an arrest, holding that there cannot be any temporary suspension of a fundamental right.

The Court directed that Magistrates must record the date and time of detention, and must ascertain if the 24-hour period has been complied with from the time of such detention.

No distinction between 'Arrest' and 'Detention'

Any attempt to draw an artificial distinction between detention and arrest is constitutionally unsustainable, the Supreme Court ruled.

The Court disapproved of the views taken by the Orissa High Court in Aryaman Pattanaik, the Kerala High Court in Arun K Thomas and the Madras High Court in Kannan which held that the pre-arrest detention period can be excluded from the 24-hour period under Article 22 of the Constitution. These decisions were held as not laying down the correct law under Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

The Court approved the view taken by the Kerala High Court in Biswajith Mandal which held that the 24-hour deadline for producing an accused before a magistrate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution begins from the moment a person's liberty is effectively curtailed, rather than from the time police formally records the arrest.

The Court noted that Article 22(2) uses the expression "every person who is arrested and detained in custody". The Court held that the expressions "arrested" and "detained" are to be seen as joint and conjunctive. The expression being joint and conjunctive, the two words appearing therein would mean one and the same thing. This is because the Constitution does not recognise any detention divorced from arrest," the Court said.

An artificial distinction between 'arrest' and 'detention' would be highly problematic. If we venture into such semantics, the question will naturally arise as to who will determine what a short investigative period is or when a detention extends beyond the short investigative period, the Court asked.

The Court was deciding the appeals filed by four persons challenging the Tripura High Court's judgment denying them bail in a case under the NDPS Act. They were detained on September 29, 2025, at 2 PM as part of a search and seizure but were shown as formally arrested at 11 AM on September 30, 2025. The Court ruled that they ought to have been produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours from September 29 at 2 PM.

The Court noted that they were kept under detention for about 18 hours without any judicial oversight. Noting that this violated Article 22(2), the Court ordered their immediate release.

The Court said that the instances of custodial violence necessitate a proper judicial oversight of detention.

Conclusions

Justice Bhuyan pronounced the conclusions of the judgment as follows :

1. The period of 24 hours [for production before the Magistrate] in terms of Article 22 would commence from the date and time of detention of the person detained, when his liberty stands curtailed, and not from the time of his formal arrest.

2. In the event such detention continues beyond 24 hours, before the person is produced before the Magistrate, he shall be forthwith released from custody.

3. While computing the 24-hour deadline, no other time period is permitted to be excluded therefrom, except the time necessary for journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the Magistrate.

4 .The decisions of the Orissa High Court in Aryama Pattnaik, Madras High Court in Kannan, and Kerala High Court in Arun K Thomas, do not lay down the correct law qua interpretation of Article 22(2).

5. The detaining authority should keep in mind not only the 24-hour deadline mandated by Article 22(2) but also ensure that such detention should not extend beyond the reasonable period within the 24-hour period considering the circumstances of the case in terms of Section 58 of BNSS.

6. At the time of production, the Magistrate is duty-bound to record the actual date and time of detention of the person produced before him when his liberty stood curtailed, and examine whether the 24-hour deadline has been complied with or not from the time of such detention. If there is a breach of the 24-hour deadline, the concerned person shall be forthwith released from detention.

7. The Magistrate shall also examine at the time of production whether the detention of the person produced, though within the time frame of 24 hours, has exceeded the period which can be construed to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If he is satisfied that the detention in custody has been for a longer period than what is reasonable, he may decline remand.

The Tripura High Court had denied bail to the four accused persons arrested in the case involving the seizure of 11.03 kg of yaba tablets, holding that the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied before granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband. The Court rejected the argument of the accused that the breach of arrest procedure under Section 36 of the BNSS.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, which held that prolonged incarceration alone cannot override the statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act.

Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim, assisted by Ali Asghar Rahim Advocate, appeared for the appellants in the Supreme Court.