Customs officers intercept three men with a truckload of methamphetamine at 2 pm. They are taken to the Customs office, searched, questioned and kept there overnight. Their arrest is formally recorded at 11 am the next day, and they reach a Magistrate at 4:45 pm. On paper, that is under six hours from arrest. In reality, they had been held for nearly 27.
When does the 24-hour clock in Article 22(2) of the Constitution start? And can a Magistrate refuse remand even when the 24 hours have not run out? On 5 November 2026, in Sujit Das and Others v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 1195, the Supreme Court answered both, and set out conclusions that every police station, investigating agency and remand court must now follow.
The judgment in three lines.
1. The 24 hours under Article 22(2) run from the moment a person is detained and his liberty is curtailed, not from the time his arrest is formally recorded.
2. If he is not produced before a Magistrate within those 24 hours, he must be released forthwith. Only travel time to the court is excluded.
3. Twenty-four hours is the outer limit, not an entitlement. Under Section 58 BNSS (Section 57 CrPC) the detention must also be reasonable, and a Magistrate may decline remand if it was not.
Read the full judgment (PDF, 97 pages) →
The Case at a Glance
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Case | Sri Sujit Das and Others v. Union of India |
| Citation | 2026 INSC 1195 (Reportable) |
| Arising out of | SLP (Crl.) Nos. 12451-12453 of 2026, against the Tripura High Court order of 29 April 2026 refusing bail |
| Bench | Justice Ujjal Bhuyan (author) and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar |
| Decided | 5 November 2026 |
| Law | Article 22(2), Constitution of India; Section 58 BNSS (Section 57 CrPC); Section 37, NDPS Act |
| Result | Appeals allowed. High Court order set aside. Appellants to be produced before the Special Court within 7 days and released on bail. |
| Full text | Judgment PDF |
The Facts
- On 29 September 2025, acting on secret information, the Divisional Preventive Force of the Customs Division, Agartala followed a truck carrying ginger. At about 2 pm the appellants were intercepted and a first lot of 11.03 kg of methamphetamine (Yaba) tablets was recovered. A further search at the Customs office took the total to 60.79 kg. The search and seizure ended at 5 pm.
- The appellants were shown as arrested under Section 42(1)(d) of the NDPS Act at 11 am and 11:15 am on 30 September 2025.
- They were produced before the Magistrate at about 4:45 pm on 30 September and remanded to judicial custody.
- The Special Judge and then the Tripura High Court refused bail, relying on the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- The Article 22(2) point was not argued in the High Court. It was raised in the Supreme Court, which called for an affidavit from the Investigating Officer on the timeline.
The Arguments
For the appellants: their liberty was curtailed at the interception at 2 pm, so the 24 hours ran from then. The distinction between “detention” and “arrest” has no basis in the Constitution or any statute, and a person held by officers with coercive powers is in custody.
For the Union of India: the appellants were only intercepted, not arrested, and NDPS procedures (notice under Section 50, a gazetted officer, weighing, questioning, travel) take time. A temporary restraint under Sections 42 and 43 does not trigger Article 22(2). Counted from 5 pm, production the next afternoon was within 24 hours. The Union relied on decisions of the Orissa, Madras and Kerala High Courts, and accepted that pre-arrest detention cannot be “for an unduly long period”.
Holding 1: The Clock Starts at Detention, Not at Formal Arrest
The Court held that “arrested and detained in custody” in Article 22(2) is a single, conjunctive expression. The two words do not mean different things, because, as para 58 puts it:
“This is because the Constitution does not recognize any detention dehors arrest. Thus, the prescription of 24 hours time period would commence the moment a person is detained by the arresting authority suspecting him to have committed an offence, when his liberty is effectively curtailed.”
There is, the Court said, no such thing as a “temporary disruption of liberty” that falls outside the Constitution. It rejected the idea of a pre-arrest window for enquiry in plain terms (para 43):
“Article 22(2) does not sanction creation of any buffer zone where the liberty of an individual is curtailed for investigating purposes but not formally shown as arrested. Creation or contemplation of such buffer zone is unconstitutional.”
The Court also laid down a rule of reading: a statute cannot be used to cut down the meaning of a fundamental right. The NDPS Act’s procedures do not create time that the Constitution does not allow.
Holding 2: Twenty-Four Hours Is Sacrosanct
Article 22(2) has no exceptions. As para 16.1 records, “the 24-hours deadline is sacrosanct. The only period which is permitted to be deducted from the 24 hours mandate is the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate.” Time spent on searches, weighing, statements or paperwork does not count as travel.
A breach makes the arrest illegal and unconstitutional, and the person must be released from custody forthwith (para 69(ii)).
Holding 3: Within 24 Hours, the Detention Must Still Be Reasonable
Section 57 CrPC, now Section 58 BNSS, says a person shall not be detained “for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable”, and in any case not beyond 24 hours. The Court read this as two limits: the constitutional outer limit of 24 hours, and within it, a reasonableness limit. In para 60:
“In a given case, even though technically there may not be any breach of the 24 hours timeline, yet if the magistrate is satisfied that detention was for a period longer than what was reasonable, he or she may decline remand.”
This is the point the headlines picked up. Remand is not automatic simply because the police arrive inside 24 hours.
What the Court Directed Magistrates and Investigators to Do
The conclusions in para 69 are framed as general law:
- The 24 hours under Article 22(2) commence from the date and time of detention, when liberty is curtailed, not from the formal arrest.
- If a detained person is not produced within 24 hours, he shall be released from custody forthwith.
- Nothing is excluded from the 24 hours except the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court.
- The Orissa (Aryaman Pattnayak), Madras (Kannan) and Kerala (Arun K. Thomas) decisions allowing a pre-arrest period do not lay down the correct law.
- The detaining authority must keep both limits in mind: the 24 hours and the reasonableness requirement of Section 58 BNSS / Section 57 CrPC.
- At the time of production, the Magistrate is duty bound to record the actual date and time when the person’s liberty was curtailed and to check the 24-hour compliance from that time.
- The Magistrate must also examine whether detention within the 24 hours was longer than reasonable, and may decline remand if it was.
A copy of the judgment is to be circulated to all Directors General of Police, the Registrars General of the High Courts and the Directors of State Judicial Academies (para 70).
How It Applied to the Appellants
Counting from the interception at about 2 pm on 29 September, production at 4:45 pm on 30 September was beyond 24 hours. The arrest was therefore vitiated. Separately, the Court found an unexplained gap of 18 hours between the end of the search at 5 pm and the formal arrest at 11 am the next day, which it held was not reasonable under Section 58 BNSS. The appeals were allowed and the appellants directed to be released on bail through the Special Court.
Section 37 NDPS Does Not Shield an Illegal Arrest
The High Court had refused bail because of the stringent twin conditions in Section 37. The Supreme Court expressed its “reservation” about the view in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora that Article 21 operates within the framework of Section 37, and held that where Article 21 is violated, the rigour of Section 37 must give way. Release here rested on Article 22(2) and Section 58 BNSS; the Court did not decide the Section 37 conditions on merits.
What This Means in Practice
- For defence counsel: at the first remand, put the time of interception or apprehension on record, not just the time in the arrest memo. Seizure memos, CCTV, call records and the IO’s own timeline are the evidence.
- For Magistrates: record the actual time liberty was curtailed and check the 24 hours from then. A late or unexplained gap is a ground to decline remand.
- For investigating agencies (NDPS, Customs, ED, police): searches and formalities must fit inside the 24 hours. “Interception”, “questioning” or “temporary restraint” before a recorded arrest now counts.
- For bail courts: an Article 22(2) breach is a ground for release that the statutory bars on bail do not override.
Quick Revision
- Start of 24 hours: detention, when liberty is curtailed.
- Excluded: only journey time to the Magistrate.
- Breach: release forthwith; arrest vitiated.
- Within 24 hours: detention must still be reasonable (S. 58 BNSS / S. 57 CrPC); Magistrate may decline remand.
- Overruled in effect: Aryaman Pattnayak (Ori), Kannan (Mad), Arun K. Thomas (Ker).
- Relied on: Khatri v. State of Bihar, D.K. Basu, Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma.
Download the full judgment: Sujit Das v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 1195 (PDF) →
Disclaimer: This analysis is based on the full text of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sujit Das and Others v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 1195, dated 5 November 2026, and is for general information and legal education only. It is not legal advice. Verify provisions and citations against the bare Act and the judgment before relying on them, and consult a qualified advocate for any specific matter. Please read our Disclaimer.