The principle it has laid down — the proverbial clock starts ticking when the police takes someone into custody, not when a formal arrest is made — must be given substance in the magistrate’s office and the police thanaBy dissolving the false dichotomy between “detention” and “arrest”, the Court has gone a step further in championing liberty.3 min readNov 10, 2026 06:12 AM IST First published on: Nov 10, 2026 at 06:12 AM ISTOn November 5, the Supreme Court (SC) reaffirmed a fundamental principle of natural justice that is also a feature of India’s constitutional scheme. While overturning the denial of bail by the Tripura High Court in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case, a bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and A S Chandurkar held that “There is no such thing called temporary disruption of liberty”. Any person detained by the state must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. Sujit Das and Others v Union of India rightly does away with the specious distinction between “detention” and “arrest”, which is often used to short circuit the constitutional protections under Article 22. The proverbial clock begins ticking when the police take someone into custody, the Court has said, not after a formal arrest is made. Given the context of police excesses and laws that make bail difficult, the SC’s assertion that “fundamental rights cannot be tinkered with so lightly, not even under the special statutes” is welcome.At the heart of the judgment is a recognition of the role of the magistrate. It is at this stage that the claims of the arresting agency are first tested. Given that the “worst violations of human rights” often occur, as the Court said, during prolonged detentions, it is imperative for the magistrate and lower judiciary to scrutinise every arrest. In fact, Sujit Das follows from other recent SC verdicts, including Prabir Purkayastha v State of Delhi (2024), in which an arrest under the UAPA was voided because it did not follow the basic procedures laid down in law.AdvertisementIn National Investigation Agency v Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019), the SC said that while deciding on bail in UAPA cases, the state’s version must, prima facie, be accepted. In the years since, the Court has carved out crucial exceptions, such as in Union of India v K A Najeeb (2021), which said that bail provisions under special laws must be seen in the context of prolonged trials and in Sheikh Javed Iqbal v State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), where it said that Watali cannot be treated as an absolute precedent to deny bail. Now, by dissolving the false dichotomy between “detention” and “arrest”, the Court has gone a step further in championing liberty. The principle it has laid down must be given substance in the magistrate’s office and the police thana. ShareWhatsapptwitterFacebook