Article 22(2): 24-Hour Clock Starts at Detention, Not Formal Arrest, Supreme Court Holds

Telangana High Court (Division Bench, habeas corpus): the period of apprehension counts towards the 24 hours under Section 57 CrPC, which run from the time a person is first apprehended, not from the arrest shown in the memo.

Bombay High Court (Division Bench) endorsed Ashak Hussain: arrest commences with the restraint on liberty, and only the journey time is excluded from the 24 hours, not the time taken for a pre-arrest medical examination.

Kerala High Court (Single Judge, NDPS bail): the 24 hours run from the time the accused was effectively detained or his liberty curtailed, not from the recorded time of arrest. The Bench noted that Arun K. Thomas, a coordinate Bench, departed from it instead of seeking a reference.

Orissa High Court (Single Judge, NDPS custody extension) treated detention during search and seizure as distinct from arrest and started the 24 hours only after the search showed prima facie involvement. Held not to lay down the correct law on Article 22(2); its distinction was called totally unwarranted and highly problematic. A special leave petition against it had been dismissed on 18.08.2026.

Madras High Court (Single Judge, NDPS remand) held that time taken to fulfil the statutory mandate before arrest is not counted in the 24 hours under Section 58 BNSS. The Bench found its distinction between detention and arrest wholly unwarranted and held that it does not lay down the correct law on Article 22(2).

Kerala High Court (Single Judge, NDPS bail) held that a Section 67 enquiry creates a buffer zone in which the 24 hours remain in abeyance, and that the time runs only from the completion of search and seizure or formal arrest. Held contrary to Article 22(2) read with Section 58 BNSS and not to lay down the correct law; the Single Judge should have sought a reference instead of departing from Biswajit Mandal.

Producing an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours is a binding constitutional command to be strictly and scrupulously observed, and the bar on detention without remand lets magistrates keep a check on police investigation (the Bhagalpur blindings case).

The 24-hour rule is meant to prevent unlawful detention and custodial abuse; the worst violations of human rights occur during investigation, including by not recording an arrest or describing the deprivation of liberty as prolonged interrogation.

A violation of Article 22(2) vitiates the arrest as contrary to Articles 21 and 22(2), and the court hearing the bail application must then release the accused on bail.

The same Bench examined Article 22(2) on re-arrest after a breach of clauses (1) and (2) and held that its mandate remains firm; also cited for the rule that the Constitution cannot be interpreted in a vacuum, and among the decisions on Article 21 and Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Arrest means the restraint or deprivation of one's personal liberty to go where one pleases. Relied on by the Orissa High Court, but held to support the appellants' proposition.

Relied on by the Kerala High Court for treating search and seizure powers as a temporary interference with rights. Its observations were made while examining the evidentiary value of a Section 67 statement; it did not consider Article 22(2), and nothing more should be read into them.

Cited among the decisions holding that, when Article 21 is violated, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act or similar provisions of special statutes must give way (a three-Judge Bench).

Cited among the decisions holding that, when Article 21 is violated, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act or similar provisions of special statutes must give way.

Cited among the decisions holding that, when Article 21 is violated, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act or similar provisions of special statutes must give way.

Cited among the decisions holding that, when Article 21 is violated, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act or similar provisions of special statutes must give way.

Cited among the decisions holding that, when Article 21 is violated, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act or similar provisions of special statutes must give way; the judgment adds after this citation that this Court clearly held that Article 21 overrides Section 37.

Cited among the decisions holding that, when Article 21 is violated, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act or similar provisions of special statutes must give way.

A Constitution Bench held that the Constitution must be interpreted broadly, not in a narrow and pedantic sense, so that citizens enjoy fundamental rights in the fullest measure.

A constitutional provision, particularly a fundamental right, must be construed in a wide and liberal manner and given a generous and purposive construction.

A nine-Judge Bench held that the fundamental rights in Part III were added as a check on the power of the State.

The language of the Constitution is not clay in the hands of the interpreter, and interpretation cannot create a new constitutional text.

Emphasised videography of crime scenes during investigation and recalled the D.K. Basu guidelines and CCTV cameras in police stations and prisons; cited on the Court's concern with abuse in police custody.

A three-Judge Bench directed CCTV cameras with audio and night vision in every police station and in the offices of agencies such as the CBI, NIA, ED and NCB where interrogation takes place; cited on custodial violence.