#article 22

An apparent slip of the tongue by the new Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Erick Tsang on Thursday gave rise to concerns among the opposition camp that the government is poised to disqualify more candidates in the upcoming Legislative Council election.

Tsang was answering reporters’ questions for the first time since being named constitutional affairs chief on Wednesday, when one asked him about rumours that he would be cracking down on pro-democracy candidates by disqualifying them.

“These are just conspiracy theories”, Tsang answered.

“Any disqualifications will be done according to the law. If you meet the conditions for becoming a candidate, then how I can disqualify you, right? So long as they uphold the Basic Law and support the SAR government, there’s absolutely no problem”, he said.

The last comment raised eyebrows among the opposition, with Democratic Party legislator Ted Hui saying according to this logic, only candidates who support all government policies can run, and all pan-democrats can thus be disqualified.

It’s not our constitutional responsibility to support the government”, Hui said.

“There are bills and proposals that we don’t agree with… and the citizens, the public doesn’t agree with, so we’ll vote no. He’s broadening the line of disqualifying us, paving the path to disqualifying us”, he concluded.

Several hours after Tsang made the comments, the government’s Information Services Department put out an amended transcript of his comments in Chinese, suggesting the new minister had misspoken.

The transcript mostly faithfully reflected what Tsang said, but followed the part about “supporting the SAR government” with a note saying that the word “support” should have been “pledge allegiance to”.

The word ‘government’ was also omitted, leaving the amended sentence saying “So long as they uphold the Basic Law and [pledge allegiance to] the SAR, there’s absolutely no problem”. Tsang’s predecessor, Patrick Nip, who was moved to head the Civil Service Bureau as part of the Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s cabinet reshuffle, had been forced to apologise as one of his last acts as constitutional affairs chief after his bureau issued a set of contradictory statements that ultimately reversed the government’s long-standing position that Article 22 of the Basic Law applies to Beijing’s Liaison Office here.

Election officials have disqualified a number of pro-democracy candidates in past elections due to their perceived positions on self-determination for Hong Kong, leading to concerns that more candidates may be prevented from running in the coming Legco polls.

RTHK

Further reading:

RTHK: Saga over liaison office powers is now settled: CE, April 21, 2020

Pan-democratic lawmakers warned on Monday that the SAR is facing a constitutional crisis, as a row escalates over what limits there are to the powers of Beijing's liaison office in Hong Kong.

At a press briefing, the pro-democracy camp said the office's contention that it is not subject to restrictions laid out under Article 22 of the Basic Law is the “gravest assault” on the "One Country, Two Systems" principle. Democratic Party lawmaker Helena Wong accused mainland authorities of "twisting" the Basic Law.

“The Hong Kong SAR government is directly under the central government. The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO) and the liaison office are also under the central government. We are neither under the HKMAO nor the liaison office," she said.

"It’s stated clearly in the constitution, unless President Xi Jinping tells us whatever was said in the past isn’t valid anymore and that he can interpret the Basic Law in whatever ways he wants,” she said.

[Civic Party]’s Claudia Mo, meanwhile, accused the Hong Kong government of failing to uphold the "One Country, Two Systems" principle.

“The repeatedly revised government statements [on Saturday night] are not just inflammatory, they are downright dishonest. It shows you the Carrie Lam government will just bend over backwards to accommodate Beijing’s wishes and they wouldn’t even bother to keep up appearances,” she said.

“This is probably the gravest assault on One Country, Two Systems because now they’re laying down the ground rule… their ground rule that they can just do anything, say anything about Hong Kong. I’m the law, according to China,” she said.

The Labour Party's Fernando Cheung said the affair marks a turning point. He said that while the liaison office had meddled in Hong Kong matters in the past, it always used to do so in a clandestine way. Now everything is out in the open, he said.

RTHK

Further reading:

RTHK: Saga over liaison office powers is now settled: CE, April 21, 2020

Get the PDF here For the executives who deploy AI on EU personal data, the lawyers who defend them, and the privacy officers who answer for it. Verified as of June 13, 2026. How AI Legal Exposure Travels Most organizations treat the General Data Protection Regulation as a cookie-banner and consent problem, settled years ago and parked with the privacy team. That reading misses what the…

Most people believe police can keep you for days — the law says otherwise. What actually happens after 24 hours could decide your liberty or your jail time.

NEW DELHI: A police officer in India cannot keep an arrested person in custody indefinitely. The Constitution and criminal procedure law impose strict time limits. As a general rule, an arrested person must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the travel time needed to reach the court.

After that point, police cannot continue custody on their own authority. Any further detention requires a Magistrate’s order. Article 22(2) of the Constitution lays down this protection, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, now in force from 1 July 2024, continues the same basic rule.

The real legal answer, however, depends on the stage of the case and on the type of custody. There is an important difference between police custody and judicial custody. Police custody means the accused remains under the control of the investigating agency for questioning and investigation.

Judicial custody means the accused is sent to jail and remains under the control of the court, not the police. Many people use both terms interchangeably, but the law does not. Tripaksha’s own criminal-law materials also treat this distinction as central in explaining custody law.

THE SHORT LEGAL ANSWER

If a person is arrested, police must produce that person before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding journey time. Without a Magistrate’s authority, detention beyond that point is illegal.

Under the present law, if investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours, the police must forward the accused to the Magistrate and seek remand under Section 187 of the BNSS.

WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS

Article 22(1) and Article 22(2) give two of the most important arrest protections in India.

First, the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest and must be allowed to consult a lawyer of choice.

Second, every arrested person must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding journey time, and cannot be detained beyond that period without a Magistrate’s authority.

These constitutional protections do not apply in the same way to preventive detention laws, which operate under a separate framework.

WHAT THE BNSS NOW PROVIDES

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced the old CrPC framework and came into force on 1 July 2024. Under BNSS, an arresting officer must communicate full particulars of the offence or grounds of arrest, must inform the arrested person of the right to bail in bailable cases, and must also inform a relative, friend, or nominated person about the arrest and the place of detention.

The arrested person is also entitled to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation, though not throughout the entire interrogation.

BNSS also preserves the requirement that when arrest is not necessary, the police must issue a notice of appearance instead of making an arrest. For offences punishable up to seven years, arrest without warrant is not supposed to be automatic.

The officer must be satisfied that arrest is necessary for reasons such as proper investigation, preventing tampering with evidence, preventing threats to witnesses, preventing further offence, or ensuring presence in court, and those reasons must be recorded in writing.

Read Also Compulsory Pre-Litigation Mediation for Commercial Suits: A Balanced Approach to Efficient Dispute Resolution

If arrest is not required, the officer must record reasons for not arresting and issue a notice to appear.

SO HOW LONG CAN POLICE KEEP YOU BEFORE PRODUCING YOU IN COURT?

The answer is 24 hours from the time of arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey to the Magistrate’s court. That is the outer limit for detention without judicial authorization.

Police cannot keep an arrested person in the police station for two days, three days, or “until inquiry is complete” merely because the FIR is serious. Once 24 hours expires, continued detention requires an order from the Magistrate.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER 24 HOURS?

If investigation cannot be completed within the first 24 hours, the police must produce the accused before a Magistrate and seek remand.

At that stage, the Magistrate may authorize custody. But even here, the law draws a line between police custody and judicial custody. Under Section 187 BNSS, the Magistrate may initially authorize custody, and the total detention during investigation can extend up to 60 days or 90 days depending on the seriousness of the offence.

However, that does not mean police custody itself can continue throughout those 60 or 90 days.

MAXIMUM PERIOD OF POLICE CUSTODY

This is the point most people misunderstand. The maximum permissible police custody is tied to the first 15 days after the accused is first produced before the Magistrate. Beyond that initial period, further remand during investigation can only be judicial custody, not police custody.

The Supreme Court in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni made this position clear and held that there cannot be police custody after the expiry of the first 15 days, even if more offences from the same transaction later come to light.

That principle remains one of the most important custody rulings in India. In practical terms, this means police may seek remand for interrogation, recovery, confrontation, or investigation, but only within that limited initial statutory window.

After that, the accused may still remain in custody if the court so orders, but it will ordinarily be judicial custody in jail, not police custody in the lock-up.

HOW LONG CAN TOTAL CUSTODY CONTINUE DURING INVESTIGATION?

During investigation, the Magistrate may authorize detention beyond 15 days if adequate grounds exist, but the total period cannot exceed 90 days where the offence is punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of ten years or more, and 60 days in other cases.

Once that period expires, the accused becomes entitled to default bail if prepared to furnish bail. This is a major safeguard against endless investigation-based incarceration.

A crucial practical point must be added. The 60-day or 90-day period is not a license for the police to keep someone in the police station for that entire time. It is only the outer investigation-remand period, most of which is ordinarily judicial custody. Police custody is the narrower and much more restricted category.

Read Also Police Calling You for Inquiry? Know Your Legal Rights Before You Go to the Police Station in India

WHAT IF THE ARREST ITSELF WAS UNNECESSARY?

The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that arrest is not to be made in a routine or mechanical manner. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Court directed that police officers must not automatically arrest when the law does not require it, and must satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the statutory conditions. The Court’s directions were serious enough that the judgment was ordered to be circulated to Chief Secretaries, DGPs, and High Courts for compliance.

The same caution continues to inform present law. Even recent Supreme Court decisions have reiterated that the power to arrest is distinct from the justification for arrest. In other words, having the legal power to arrest is not the same as having valid reasons to arrest. Courts continue to insist that arrests must be based on statutory necessity and not on mere allegations.

JUDICIAL OBSERVATIONS THAT MATTER IN CUSTODY CASES

A few judicial observations continue to dominate this area of law.

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court framed mandatory safeguards for arrest and detention and described them as requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention until legal provisions are suitably incorporated. Those safeguards later influenced statutory arrest procedure, including arrest memo, information to relatives, and transparency in custody.

In Arnesh Kumar, the Court effectively warned against automatic arrest and emphasized that police must justify arrest under law rather than treat arrest as the default response to an accusation.

In CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, the Court drew the bright-line rule that police custody cannot continue after the first 15 days from initial remand. That is one of the most frequently cited rulings whenever unlawful remand is challenged.

In more recent litigation touching arrest standards, the Supreme Court has again stressed that courts cannot be silent spectators when liberty is at stake and that arrest must be rational, fair, and according to law.

RIGHTS OF A PERSON IN CUSTODY IN INDIA

An arrested person in India has a bundle of immediate legal protections. The person must be told why he is being arrested. In bailable offences, he must be told of the right to bail. A relative, friend, or nominated person must be informed.

The person has the right to meet an advocate during interrogation, though not throughout questioning. The Magistrate must also check whether these safeguards were followed when the arrested person is produced.

These are not mere technicalities. If ignored, they can become grounds to challenge the legality of arrest, remand, or subsequent custody.

POLICE CUSTODY VERSUS JUDICIAL CUSTODY

This distinction should always be explained clearly to clients and readers.

Police custody means the accused is in the control of the police for interrogation and investigation. This is the more intrusive form of custody, and therefore the law keeps it tightly restricted.

Judicial custody means the accused is lodged in jail under court authority. The police do not have unfettered access to the person in judicial custody; if they want interrogation or police remand, they must seek proper court orders within the limits permitted by law.

Read Also Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja

This is why the answer to the title question should never be oversimplified. Police can hold you on their own only up to 24 hours excluding journey time. After production before the Magistrate, custody depends on remand orders. Even then, police custody is restricted to the initial 15-day framework, while total investigation detention may extend to 60 or 90 days depending on the offence.

CAN POLICE KEEP CALLING YOU WITHOUT ARRESTING YOU?

Yes, but that is legally different from custody. If arrest is not required, police may issue a notice directing appearance. Under the present statutory scheme, notice is the expected route where arrest is unnecessary.

That is why many individuals wrongly assume they are “in custody” merely because they have been called to the police station. Legally, custody begins when liberty is actually restrained and arrest takes place.

PRACTICAL LEGAL POSITION IN 2026

As of April 2026, the correct legal framework for ordinary criminal cases in India is the Constitution plus the BNSS, not the old CrPC for newly governed procedure after the changeover date.

Any current article on police custody must therefore discuss Article 22, BNSS Sections on arrest safeguards, the 24-hour production rule, Section 187 remand, and the Supreme Court line of cases on unnecessary arrest and limited police remand.

CONCLUSION

So, how long can police keep you in custody in India?

On their own authority, not beyond 24 hours from arrest, excluding travel time to the Magistrate. Beyond that, only a Magistrate can authorize further detention. Even then, police custody is not open-ended.

The law and the Supreme Court restrict police remand to the initial statutory window, while longer detention during investigation is ordinarily judicial custody. If the investigation drags beyond 60 or 90 days, the accused may earn the right to default bail.

The deeper principle is simple: arrest does not suspend constitutional liberty. Custody in India is regulated by law, not by convenience of the investigating agency.

FAQs

Can police keep someone in custody for more than 24 hours in India? Not without producing the person before a Magistrate and obtaining legal remand.

What is the maximum police custody allowed in India? Police custody is confined to the initial remand period and cannot continue beyond the first 15 days framework recognized by law and the Supreme Court.

Is police custody the same as judicial custody? No. Police custody is with the investigating agency, while judicial custody is jail custody under court control.

Do police have to tell family members about an arrest? Yes. The law requires intimation to a relative, friend, or nominated person.

Is Dissent Now National Security?

A peaceful climate voice sits in jail under NSA, while the Supreme Court weighs a habeas corpus plea by Geetanjali Angmo demanding detention grounds under Article 22.

The ask is modest: Sixth Schedule safeguards for Ladakh within the Constitution.

Right to Freedom (Articles 19−22)

In this article, you are going to read all about the Right to Freedom. Fundamental Rights The independence of many Asian and African nations did not result in the establishment of democracy and liberal institutions in all countries. The United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10th December 1948 which stressed providing basic rights to humans. The Constitution of…

ARTICLE 22 – RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Definitions of the right to social security

The…