About The Author
Saina Fathima J is a third-year law student at Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram.
INTRODUCTION
Recently the Kerala High Court, in the case of Biswajit Mandal v. Inspector, Narcotics Control Bureau dealt with a significant constitutional question regarding the twenty four hour rule for producing an arrested person before a Magistrate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The case heard by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas addressed a fundamental issue- “When does the twenty four hour period to produce an accused before the Magistrate commence? Does it start from the time of arrest as recorded by the police or from the time when the accused was detained?”
The interesting part is that the Court appointed two law interns – Ms. Nikhina Thomas and Ms. Neha Babu ( 2nd year students of Ramaiah College, Bengaluru) – as Amici Curiae to assist in the matter.
FACTS
- Petitioner was alleged as the accused by the Narcotics Control Bureau for the possession of 26.92 Kg of ganja from Ernakulam Junction Railway Station.
- Petitioner was taken into custody at 3 pm on 25.01.2025 while his arrest was recorded at 2.00 pm on 26.01.2025 and produced before the Magistrate only at 8.00 pm on 26.01.2025.
- The petitioner contended that this delay amounted to illegal detention exceeding 24 hours, violating Article 22(2) of the Constitution.
LEGAL ISSUE
Whether the twenty four hour period to produce an accused before the Magistrate begins from the time of formal arrest or from the moment the person’s liberty is effectively curtailed by detention?
COURT’S REASONING
- The argument by the petitioner on the violation of constitutional provision and curtailing the liberty of the petitioner has been countered by the prosecutor as “there is nothing illegal in arrest”.
- The Amici Curiae appointed by the Court articulated that “the twenty-four hour clock for production of a person before the Magistrate begins from the moment of effective curtailment of liberty and not from the formal recording of arrest.”
In D.K. Basu v. State of W. B. and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others, it has been contended that the delay in formally recording the arrest within time and production before the Magistrate rendered the petitioner’s arrest in violation of the procedure established by law.
Here there is a delay in formally recording the arrest, despite the accused being in custody from 25.01.2025, constitutes an unrecorded period of custody.
- The Court looked into the other side of this matter by having a view that brutalities of police generally occur during the unrecorded periods of custody and that can be the source of human rights violations.
- The term ‘arrested and detained’ is a phrase which is often misused by the police authorities. In the State of Haryana and Others v. Dinesh Kumar, the Court observed that “the word ‘arrest’ when used in its natural sense, means restraint or the deprivation of one’s personal liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not, depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether he has been deprived of his personal liberty to go where he pleases.”
- Hence, the period of twenty four hours to produce an accused before the Magistrate commences from the time when the accused was effectively detained or his liberty was curtailed.
Here the moment after 3.00 pm on 25.01.2025 till his arrest, the liberty of the petitioner was effectively curtailed.
CONCLUSION
The Kerala High Court’s ruling represents a progressive reaffirmation of constitutional principles and right-centric interpretation of arrest and detention. By holding that unrecorded detention amounts to illegal custody, the Kerala High Court has sent a strong message against informal or prolonged interrogative detention practices by law enforcement agencies. It stands as a reminder that the rule of law must prevail even in the most serious offences, and that liberty once lost cannot be casually reclaimed.
A particularly noteworthy aspect of this case is the Court’s decision to appoint two law students as Amici Curiae. Their participation underscores the judiciary’s openness to fresh legal perspectives and highlights how legal education and practice can meaningfully intersect in advancing justice.
Ultimately, this decision serves as a reminder that the rule of law is measured not by conviction rates, but by how scrupulously the system protects liberty.
