Supreme Court: the 24-hour clock to produce an accused before a magistrate starts at detention, not formal arrest

The Supreme Court on Thursday, 5 November, ruled that the 24-hour period for producing a person before a magistrate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution runs from the time of detention, not only from the time of formal arrest, per LiveLaw and Hindustan Times. This piece is as of the evening of 5 November.

What the court held

The bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar said the view that 24 hours begin only from formal arrest is contrary to Article 22(2) and Section 56 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), according to LiveLaw. It said the Constitution's only exception is the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court, and that the time taken for inquiry or investigation before an arrest is made cannot be excluded. Hindustan Times says the court held that no artificial "buffer period" can exist in which liberty is curtailed without triggering the safeguards, and that even a person detained for search and seizure must be produced within 24 hours. LiveLaw, Hindustan Times and ABP Live all report that a breach of the deadline calls for immediate release.

The directions and the high courts

LiveLaw reports that magistrates must record the date and time of detention and ascertain whether the 24-hour period has been complied with from that time; South First reports the same. The court disagreed with high court rulings that treated detention and arrest as separate for this purpose: Hindustan Times names the Orissa, Kerala and Madras High Courts, and the bench called the effort to draw the distinction "highly problematic and wholly unwarranted".

The case

The judgment arose from appeals by four people arrested in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act case involving the seizure of 11.03 kg of yaba tablets in Tripura, who were detained on 29 September 2025 during search and seizure operations, per Hindustan Times. Justice Bhuyan read out the operative portion and said there is nothing like a temporary disruption of liberty. LiveLaw says the court ordered the four released, having found they were held for about 18 hours without judicial oversight beyond the deadline.