India’s Supreme Court rules that the constitutional 24-hour deadline for producing a person before a judicial magistrate begins from the time of detention, not from the moment police formally record an arrest. The court holds that separating “detention” from “arrest” for this purpose creates an impermissible loophole and is not constitutionally sustainable.
The court also specifies how to calculate the 24-hour period. It says the only time that can be excluded is the interval reasonably needed to travel from where the person is taken into custody to the magistrate’s court. Periods spent on inquiry, investigation, searching, or seizure before formal arrest cannot be excluded.
Across outlets, the core ruling is presented consistently. One outlet emphasises the court’s critique of High Courts that had allowed a detention-versus-arrest distinction; another highlights the Article 22(2) framework and the court’s clear rejection of excluding pre-arrest time; a third focuses on the key remark about the terms “arrest” and “detention” and the practical deadline implication.
