Supreme Court Rules 24-Hour Custody Clock Starts From Detention, Not Formal Arrest

Supreme Court: 24-Hour Production Clock Runs From Detention

The Supreme Court in Sujit Das v. Union of India ruled on November 5, 2026 that the 24-hour period for producing a person before a magistrate starts when liberty is curtailed by detention and not when a formal arrest is recorded, with a Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar directing immediate release of the appellants before it. The judgment said the safeguard under article 22 of constitution is triggered the moment a person comes under the control and custody of the arresting authority on suspicion of an offence. Justice Bhuyan read out the operative portion in court.

Appeals before the Court were filed by four persons caught in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act case involving seizure of 11.03 kg of yaba tablets in Tripura. The order records that they were detained at 2 pm on September 29, 2025 during search and seizure operations but were shown as formally arrested only at 11 am the next day. The Tripura High Court had rejected their bail pleas on the ground that the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act had to be satisfied, the judgment noted.

Accused contended before the Supreme Court that the investigating agency had used the gap between interception and paperwork to defeat the 24-hour production requirement under Article 22(2). The agency contended that the clock began only on September 30 when the arrest was formally entered. The Court rejected the agency's construction as illegal.

"Clause (2) of Article 22 does not sanction creation of a zone where the liberty of an individual is curtailed for investigative purposes but not formally shown as arrested. Creation or contemplation of such a buffer zone is unconstitutional," the Court held. It said no artificial distinction could be drawn between detention before formal arrest and the period thereafter. "Any attempt to draw an artificial distinction between arrest and detention would dilute or negate the fundamental protection guaranteed by the Constitution," the judgment explained, adding that the interpretation which enhances the constitutional objective must be adopted.

For this purpose, the Court said the words "arrested and detained" in clause (2) of Article 22 are synonymous. "The Constitution does not recognise any detention divorced from arrest... The prescription of the 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 judgment said. It said custodial violence is an unfortunate reality judicially acknowledged in the country. The worst violations take place during investigation when police resort to third-degree methods by screening arrest through non-recording of arrest or describing deprivation of liberty as prolonged interrogation, the Court said, and its endeavour has been to guard against such violence from interception itself.