A case that arose from the interception of four men in Tripura last September resulted in a consequential judgement at the Supreme Court this week. While ruling in Sri Sujit Das & Others that the 24-hour period for producing a detained person before a magistrate begins when the person is taken into custody, even if the police formally record the arrest later, the apex court not only clarified the procedure for the police, but also rejected some high courts’ views distinguishing detention during investigation from formal arrest.
In the Tripura case, formal arrests took place around noon the day after a search was completed. The men were produced before a magistrate on the second evening. The Supreme Court held that their custody began when they were first intercepted and came “under the control of the search team”. The judgement seeks to plug a gap exploited on numerous instances where the police delay recording an arrest, keeping a person in custody while evading the 24-hour safeguard under Article 22(2) of the Constitution. It holds that the provision recognises neither a “temporary disruption of liberty” nor a “buffer zone” outside the 24-hour limit.
The breach of Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which requires detention to be reasonable and not exceed 24 hours, underscored the illegality. The court clarified that a magistrate may refuse remand if detention is unreasonable, even when the person is produced within the prescribed time. Its observations on delayed arrest records and custodial violence are important. The “worst violation of human rights”, it noted, can occur during investigation, when police resort to “third degree methods” or describe detention as “prolonged interrogation”.
The verdict affirms personal liberty. During the recent student-led protests, reports emerged of protesters being detained and taken to undisclosed locations. The question is, can the State hold someone in custody without disclosing their whereabouts or allowing those concerned to seek legal recourse? The ruling makes clear that the State cannot evade its constitutional obligations by delaying the formal recording of an arrest. The safeguards under Article 22(2) must apply from the moment a person is taken into custody, irrespective of the purpose of detention. For the Supreme Court’s judgement to be effective, police actions in breach must have consequences.