SC strikes down informal custody: custodial clock ticks from detention, not formal arrest
text_fields
The Supreme Court today delivered a significant ruling rejecting the artificial distinction between arrest and detention, making it mandatory for the police to produce a detained person before a magistrate within 24 hours of being taken into custody, even if no formal arrest has been recorded.
A Bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar held that the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(2), which protects individuals against prolonged detention without judicial oversight, cannot be circumvented by delaying the formal recording of an arrest.
The Bench said that calculating the 24-hour period only from the time of formal arrest would be contrary to the constitutional mandate and Section 56 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The court rejected the long-standing contention that brief custody falls short of an arrest, and it firmly declared that fundamental rights cannot suffer temporary suspension under the guise of prolonged inquiry, search, or seizure. It ruled that the period must be calculated from the moment a person is first detained, irrespective of when the police formally register the arrest.
The Bench also directed magistrates to record the date and time of detention and independently ascertain whether the constitutional deadline has been observed. If detention continues beyond 24 hours, excluding only the time reasonably required for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court, the person must be released from custody.
The court further cautioned law enforcement authorities against extending detention beyond a reasonable period within the constitutionally prescribed 24 hours.
The ruling assumes particular significance amid widespread detentions during the protests against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Delhi, raising questions about the safeguards available to those taken into custody without immediate formal arrest.
The Supreme Court also held that the Orissa High Court's decision in Aryama Pattnaik, the Madras High Court's ruling in Kannan, and the Kerala High Court's judgment in Arun K Thomas did not lay down the correct position of law.