The Supreme Court ruled that the 24-hour arrest rule begins upon arrest

A view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. File | Photo credit: Sushil Kumar Verma

In a ruling on Thursday (Nov. 5, 2026), the Supreme Court said that “arrest” means the moment an officer “touches the body” of an individual to restrict their liberty, and the 24-hour countdown to bringing that person before a magistrate starts from the moment of physical contact.

The court said the word “arrest” is not defined in criminal laws, past or present, from the colonial Indian Penal Code, the Penal Code or its successor, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita of 2023.

A bench led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan pointed out that ambiguity in the definition of “arrest” allowed law enforcement agencies to detain a person for days, use third-degree measures, including torture, to extract confessions before a formal arrest is recorded.

Once a formal arrest is recorded, Article 22(2) of the Constitution requires the arrested person to be brought before a magistrate to be heard.

Until now, law enforcement officers and police counted the 24-hour rule from the time of a formal arrest after a search and seizure. Hours and days of previous detention were not taken into account.

Reversing the script, Justice Bhuyan said the perceived dichotomy between detention and arrest led to serious human rights violations.

“The tendency to detain suspects for questioning and tampering with the record to show the later time of arrest is a reprehensible practice… Investigating police officers in such cases secure statements through assault, illegal detention and fear of further detention… The worst human rights violations occur during investigations,” the court said.

The 24-hour period was a constitutional guarantee intended to act as a safety barrier to check such overreach of executive power.

“The 24-hour period, as mandated under sub-section (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution, shall commence from the date and time of the person’s detention and from the time his liberty is restricted, and not from the time of his formal arrest,” Justice Bhuyan said.

Justice Bhuyan reasoned that the Constitution does not recognize detention dehors (outside) arrest.

“Even if the person was touched for the purpose of apprehension, it would be tantamount to arrest… Thus, the 24-hour period would come into effect the moment the person is detained by the arresting authority who suspects him of committing an offence, when his liberty is effectively curtailed,” Justice Bhuyan said.

The court held that the fundamental rights to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 are at the heart of constitutional jurisprudence and “cannot be so lightly manipulated, even by special laws”.

“Article 22(2) does not authorize the creation of any buffer zone where the liberty of an individual is restricted for the purpose of investigation but is not formally shown to be under arrest. The creation or contemplation of such a buffer zone is unconstitutional,” the court said.

In a number of directions, the court ordered that any person whom the judge finds on his production to have been detained for more than 24 hours must be released immediately.

The Bench ordered that no other period of time should be excluded from the 24-hour period except the time necessary to travel from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court. The magistrate concerned was required to record the actual date and time of the detention of the person brought before the court.

The Supreme Court gave magistrates’ courts the option of ordering the release of people who had been detained longer than was actually reasonable, even if that time did not exceed 24 hours.

The court was ruling on appeals filed by four accused in the narcotics case, whose formal arrest was not recorded until 18 hours later. The Tripura High Court denied them bail, but the apex court ordered their immediate release.

Published – 5 Nov 2026 12:05 PM IST