SC Says Police Cannot Delay Constitutional Safeguards Through Searches and Questioning

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the 24-hour deadline for producing an arrested person before a magistrate begins from the moment their personal liberty is first curtailed, rather than when the investigating agency formally records the arrest. The ruling reinforces constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention and misuse of police powers.

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar observed that the Constitution does not recognise detention outside the framework of arrest. It clarified that searches, seizures and questioning cannot be used to suspend the constitutional protection under Article 22(2), which requires an arrested person to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, excluding travel time.

The judgment came in a drug-smuggling case involving 60 kg of methamphetamine tablets in Tripura. Customs officials intercepted the accused on September 29, 2025, at 2 pm, but their formal arrest memos were signed only at 11 am the following day. They were subsequently produced before a magistrate at 4.45 pm.

The court set aside the Tripura High Court's refusal of bail and directed magistrates to record the exact time when an individual's liberty is first restricted. If the person is produced after the 24-hour deadline, the magistrate must order their release.

Magistrates Must Examine Reasonableness of Detention, SC Says

The bench also clarified that compliance with the 24-hour limit does not automatically make detention lawful. Under Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), detention must also be reasonable. Magistrates can refuse police remand if custody is found to be unjustified or unnecessarily prolonged.

The court rejected the idea of creating a temporary buffer period for investigative procedures, observing that the distinction between arrest and detention cannot dilute fundamental rights. It also emphasised that constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22 cannot be overridden by restrictions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Highlighting concerns over custodial violence, the bench stressed the importance of CCTV surveillance in police stations and investigative agencies. It reiterated that recordings must be preserved for at least 18 months, and longer where complaints of custodial violence arise.

The ruling establishes that procedural delays cannot be used to bypass constitutional safeguards protecting personal liberty.