No ‘Buffer Period’ Before Arrest: Supreme Court Tightens 24-Hour Custody Rule

The Supreme Court has ruled that police and other law enforcement agencies cannot avoid the Constitution’s custody safeguards by delaying the formal recording of an arrest. The court held that the mandatory 24-hour limit for producing a person before a magistrate starts the moment that person’s liberty is curtailed, not when arrest papers are drawn up.

The bench rejected the distinction some high courts had drawn between detention and arrest. It held that there can be no artificial “buffer period” in which a person is kept in custody without the protection of Article 22(2).

The ruling matters because Article 22(2) requires a person in custody to be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours, excluding travel time. The court made clear that this protection applies as soon as liberty is taken away, including during search and seizure operations.

Tripura NDPS Case

The ruling came in appeals filed by four people arrested in an NDPS case in Tripura involving the seizure of 11.03 kg of yaba tablets. They were detained on September 29, 2025, at 2 pm during search and seizure operations but were formally shown as arrested only at 11 am the next day.

The bench held that they should have been produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of their detention at 2 pm on September 29. Their continued detention without judicial oversight for about 18 hours violated Article 22(2), the court held, and warranted their immediate release.

The Tripura high court had rejected their bail pleas under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes twin conditions in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband. It had also rejected their challenge to the alleged breach of arrest procedure under Section 36 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Constitutional Clock

The court settled the scope of Article 22(2). That provision requires that a person arrested and detained in custody be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time needed for the journey from the place of arrest to the court.

The bench held that the constitutional clock starts when a person’s liberty is effectively curtailed. That reading removes the discretion of investigators to decide when judicial oversight begins by choosing when to formally record an arrest.

“The words 'arrest' and 'detained' under Article 22(2) are conjunctive and must be read together. The period of 24 hours shall start from the very moment a person is detained, and the person must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours,” Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said while reading out the operative portion of the judgment.

The bench also rejected the idea that a short period of detention before formal arrest can be treated as a temporary interruption of liberty. “A statute, special or otherwise, cannot be a guide to the Constitution. It has to be the other way round. The interpretation has to be in a manner that upholds the fundamental right,” the bench said. It added that detention for search and seizure beyond 24 hours runs contrary to Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

High Court Precedents

The bench disapproved of three high court rulings. These were the Orissa high court judgment in Aryaman Pattanaik (2025), the Kerala high court judgment in Arun K Thomas (2026) and the Madras high court judgment in Kannan (2025).

Those rulings had allowed the period before formal arrest to be left out while counting the 24-hour deadline. The Supreme Court held that approach could weaken a basic constitutional safeguard.

The court linked the issue directly to custodial violence. “The endeavour of this court is to eliminate custodial violence, which often takes place when a person is detained and not shown as formally under arrest. Custodial violence is unfortunately a recognised truth acknowledged by this court in several past judgments and incidents, including the Bhagalpur blinding case,” it said.

The bench then laid down fresh directions. It held that the 24-hour period starts from the date and time a person’s liberty is curtailed, including when that person is intercepted by law enforcement authorities. No period in custody before formal arrest can be excluded except genuine travel time to the magistrate.

It also held that detention without warrant must be for a reasonable period. The magistrate receiving the detained person must record the exact date and time from which the person’s liberty was curtailed and examine whether the 24-hour deadline was met. If there is a breach, the person must be released.