Adv. P. S. Subeesh v. State of Kerala

Constitution of India — Art. 22(2) — BNSS, S. 58 — Production of an arrested person before the Magistrate — Executive protocol requiring production “as far as possible” between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. and treating later production as “exceptional” — The 24-hour limit is an outer limit, not an entitlement to defer production — Separate duty to produce without unnecessary delay — Practical effect of the protocol tested, not merely its words — Disincentive to prompt production; delay in access to legal aid, challenge to arrest and opposition to remand — Impediment to time-sensitive investigation — Held, an executive protocol cannot dilute constitutional and statutory safeguards, directly or by procedural arrangements that discourage compliance — Time-window and “exceptional circumstances” clauses set aside — Prior intimation to the Magistrate for production after 5 p.m. upheld — Safety of Judicial Officers a legitimate aim, but measures must respect personal liberty.

After the death of Dr. Vandana Das at Kottarakkara Taluk Hospital, the State framed a protocol for producing accused persons before doctors and Judicial Officers. As modified in 2026, it asked the police to produce an accused “as far as possible” between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Production after 5 p.m. was treated as an exceptional circumstance, needing prior intimation to the Judicial Officer. An advocate challenged this in public interest. The Division Bench held that the 24-hour limit in Article 22(2) and Section 58 of the BNSS is an outer limit, not a licence to wait until it is about to expire. The police must still produce an arrested person without unnecessary delay. The Court looked at how the protocol would work in practice. An officer who arrests someone in the evening may hold him until the next morning, delaying his access to a lawyer, his challenge to the arrest and his chance to oppose remand. An officer who arrests someone at 4.30 p.m. may rush to court before 5 p.m. and put off a time-sensitive recovery. An executive protocol cannot dilute these safeguards, whether directly or by discouraging compliance. The time-window and “exceptional circumstances” parts were set aside; the requirement of prior intimation to the Magistrate was upheld.