The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against drawing an artificial distinction between ‘arrest’ and ‘detention’, holding that the 24-hour period for producing a person before a magistrate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution begins from the time of detention and not merely from the formal recording of arrest.
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar also held that a person detained for more than 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate must be released from custody immediately, reported Bar and Bench.
“Any attempt to draw an artificial distinction between arrest and detention would dilute the fundamental protection guaranteed by the Constitution,” the bench noted.
The court passed the ruling in Sujit Das v Union of India, a 2025 case involving a person accused of drug smuggling who was detained before his arrest was formally recorded by the investigating agency.
What were the Supreme Court’s key observations?
The court held that the 24-hour period under Article 22(2) of the Constitution begins from the time of actual detention, irrespective of when the investigating agency formally records the arrest. It said no artificial distinction between detention and arrest is constitutionally permissible and that investigating agencies cannot create a buffer period outside the protection guaranteed by the provision.
The bench further observed that detention must not be for an unreasonable period, even within the 24-hour window prescribed for producing an accused before a magistrate. This requirement under Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) must be followed in addition to the constitutional safeguard.
The court said magistrates must verify and record the actual time of detention while considering remand applications. They can also refuse remand if the period of detention is unreasonable, even if it falls within the 24-hour limit.
The top court also disapproved of earlier rulings by the Orissa High Court in the Ariyaman Pattnayak case, the Madras High Court in the Kannan case and the Kerala High Court in the Arun K Thomas case, holding that their approach was incorrect in law.
The bench further noted that the stringent conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cannot override the constitutional safeguards guaranteed to an accused.
What was the case about?
The Supreme Court delivered the ruling in Sujit Das v Union of India, a case involving a person accused of drug smuggling. The accused was detained on the afternoon of September 29, 2025, but the investigating agency formally recorded his arrest only on September 30, 2025.
The accused argued that the investigating agency had deliberately delayed recording the formal arrest to circumvent the 24-hour deadline under Article 22(2) of the Constitution, which requires an arrested person to be produced before a magistrate within that period. The investigating agency, however, maintained that the 24-hour deadline began only on September 30, when the arrest was formally recorded.
The Supreme Court rejected this approach, holding that the constitutional clock starts running from the moment a person is placed under detention, regardless of when the formal arrest is recorded. The Bench termed any attempt to suspend the constitutional safeguards available to a detained accused by drawing such a distinction unsustainable and wholly unconstitutional.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the accused in the present case was entitled to immediate release, as the procedural safeguards governing his detention and production before a magistrate had been violated.
