Supreme Court starts custody clock when detention curbs liberty
Police can no longer delay judicial oversight by postponing arrest records.
Overview
People taken into custody cannot be kept off the record while police delay entering a formal arrest. In , Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar ruled that ’s 24-hour limit begins when detention actually restricts a person’s freedom, not when police record the arrest. Time spent on questioning, searches or seizures counts. Only the time reasonably needed to reach a magistrate’s court may be excluded.
The ruling rejects a gap between detention and arrest that could extend custody without court oversight. Magistrates must record when detention truly began, check the deadline and assess whether custody was reasonable under . If police breach the limit, the person must be released, and the court may refuse further custody. The ruling strengthens protection for arrested people and requires police to record custody correctly.
Timeline
The Supreme Court ordered release when delayed production breached the constitutional safeguard
The Court held that a person detained beyond the permitted period without production before a magistrate must be released from that detention. In the case, it ordered the appellants to be produced before the jurisdictional within seven days and released them on . The ruling prevents police from extending custodial time by delaying the formal arrest record.
The Supreme Court required magistrates to record actual detention time and test remand requests
Magistrates must record when custody actually began, calculate whether 24 hours have elapsed, and assess whether the detention was reasonable. The Court linked this duty to , which separately requires reasonable custody and timely production. Magistrates may refuse remand when detention was unreasonably prolonged, even if the formal 24-hour limit has not expired.
The Supreme Court barred police from excluding inquiry, search, or seizure time from the 24-hour limit
The Court held that time spent in inquiry, investigation, search, or seizure before formal arrest remains part of the detention period. Only time reasonably required to travel to the magistrate's court may be excluded. In the case before it, the Court found an unexplained between the search and the recorded arrests.
The Supreme Court ruled in Sujit Das that the 24-hour clock starts when detention begins
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar held in Sujit Das v. Union of India that the period begins when a person's liberty is actually curtailed, not when police formally record the arrest. The Court rejected any for Article 22(2). It also disapproved contrary approaches that treated pre-arrest custody as outside the constitutional calculation.
The High Court judgment under review allowed police to calculate the deadline from formal arrest
The Supreme Court reviewed a High Court order dated 2026-04-29 concerning detention during a narcotics search and the later recording of formal arrests. The dispute focused on whether time spent in custody before the arrest record could be excluded from Article 22(2)'s 24-hour period. The Court ultimately set aside that order.
The Supreme Court held that the Article 22 clock begins when detention starts
In , the Supreme Court held that the 24-hour production period under Article 22(2) runs from the person's detention or arrest in substance, rather than from a later formal arrest record. The Court set aside the order under review.
The Constitution requires magistrate production within 24 hours of arrest and detention
requires every person arrested and detained in custody to be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours. Only the time reasonably necessary to travel from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court may be excluded. The safeguard ensures early judicial oversight of custodial detention.