In a landmark and highly significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has completely eliminated the distinction between arrest and custody. The apex court has clearly ruled that the mandatory twenty-four-hour time limit for presenting an accused person before a magistrate begins from the exact time they're taken into custody, rather than from the moment of a formal arrest, while the court emphasized that attempting to create any artificial distinction between custody and arrest is constitutionally impermissible. This major ruling is expected to deeply impact the criminal justice system and protect individual liberties, ensuring that law enforcement agencies can't bypass constitutional safeguards under the guise of prolonged preliminary detentions.
Ruling Delivered By Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar
This comprehensive verdict was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S, while chandurkar. During the proceedings, the bench explicitly stated that the notion of calculating the twenty-four-hour period solely from the time of formal arrest runs directly contrary to the constitutional provisions enshrined under Article 22(2) and Section 56 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita or BNSS. The bench elaborated that the time spent on interrogation or investigation prior to arresting an individual under Article 22(2) can't be legally excluded from the total time limit. On top of that, the Supreme Court noted that such practices fall entirely outside the permissible scope of clause (2) of Article 22.
Artificial Distinction is Totally Unconstitutional
The court sternly remarked that any such practice is completely unconstitutional. The Constitution explicitly provides only a single exception, which is the actual travel time required to journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the twenty-four-hour period under clause (2) of Article 22 begins only after search and seizure operations are concluded, or from the exact time of arrest recorded by the detaining officer. The court clarified that such an interpretation isn't only legally flawed but also fundamentally unconstitutional. The bench firmly disagreed with the proposition that holding a person in custody for a brief period doesn't amount to arrest.
Fundamental Rights Cannot Be Suspended Even Briefly
Making its stance unambiguous, the Supreme Court clarified that fundamental guaranteed rights can never be suspended, even for a brief or temporary duration. The bench reiterated that making any artificial distinction between custody and unlawful detention is constitutionally incorrect, while this judicial clarity provides solid protection to citizens against informal or undisclosed detentions by investigative agencies, reinforcing that constitutional mandates override arbitrary executive delays. The judgment ensures that procedural compliance begins the moment a citizen's freedom of movement is restrained by authorities.
Previous High Court Judgments Overruled
Through this definitive ruling, the Supreme Court has expressly overruled several conflicting decisions delivered by various High Courts across the country. Specifically, the apex court set aside the judgments of the Orissa High Court in the Aryaman Patnaik case, the Kerala High Court in the Arun K. Thomas case, and the Madras High Court in the Kannan case. In all these earlier instances, it had been held that the time spent in custody prior to formal arrest could be excluded from the twenty-four-hour period mandated under Article 22 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court concluded that these past rulings failed to reflect the correct legal and constitutional position under Article 22(2).