Feed

Why in News?

• The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling on personal liberty, reinforces Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution, particularly protection against arbitrary detention and custodial abuse.
• It held that the constitutional 24-hour deadline for producing an arrested person before a magistrate begins from the moment their liberty is first curtailed, not from the time of formal arrest recorded by the investigating agency.
• The SC set aside the Tripura HC's refusal of bail in a drug-smuggling case, ruling that investigative activities such as questioning, searches and seizures cannot suspend constitutional safeguards or create an artificial gap between detention and arrest.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Background of the Case
• Constitutional and Legal Framework
• Key Observations of the SC
• Significance of the Judgment

Background of the Case:

• Incident: Customs officers of the Divisional Preventive Force, Agartala, intercepted the appellants at 2 p.m. while they were carrying 60 kg of methamphetamine tablets.
• Delay in formal arrest: Although the individuals came under the physical control of the search team at 2 p.m., formal arrest memos were signed only at 11 a.m. the following day.
• Production before magistrate: They were produced at 4:45 p.m., beyond 24 hours from their initial interception.
• Investigating agency's argument: The officers claimed that the intervening period was used for searches, seizures and questioning, and both the Special Court and the HC rejected their bail applications.
• SC ruling: Rejected this distinction between interception and formal arrest, holding that the actual restriction of personal liberty determines when constitutional safeguards become applicable.

Constitutional and Legal Framework:

• Article 22(2) – Protection against arbitrary detention:
  • Every person arrested and detained must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
  • The time required for the journey from the place of detention to the magistrate is excluded. Detention beyond 24 hours requires the magistrate's authorisation.
• Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023:
  • A person arrested without a warrant cannot be detained beyond a reasonable period.
  • Such detention cannot exceed 24 hours, excluding journey time, without the special order of a magistrate under the applicable law.
  • It reinforces the requirement of judicial oversight over police custody.
• Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985:
  • Empowers authorised officers to search, seize and arrest persons suspected of drug-related offences.
  • Section 37 imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in specified serious offences.
  • However, the NDPS Act does not provide an exemption from constitutional safeguards governing arrest and detention.

Key Observations of the SC:

• Actual curtailment of liberty starts the 24-hour clock:
  • An artificial distinction between arrest and detention would dilute the fundamental protection guaranteed by the Constitution.
  • The 24-hour period begins when a person's liberty is effectively curtailed by authorities on suspicion of involvement in an offence.
  • Formal documentation of arrest cannot determine the starting point. Only the time spent travelling to the magistrate is excluded.
• No constitutional buffer zone for investigation:
  • The Court rejected the argument that a short investigatory hold could precede formal arrest.
  • It also rejected the proposition that the 24-hour clock could remain suspended during searches and seizures.
  • The Constitution does not recognise any temporary disruption of liberty or investigative buffer zone that allows the executive to bypass fundamental rights.
• Informal custody must also be reasonable:
  • Section 58 of the BNSS imposes a dual requirement: detention must remain within the prescribed period and must also be reasonable.
  • The Court considered prolonged custody without judicial oversight unreasonable and susceptible to misuse. It emphasised that remand is never a mechanical exercise.
  • Magistrates must independently examine the circumstances and reasons for detention, and can refuse police remand, if the preceding detention was unreasonable (even if an accused is produced within 24 hours).
• Fundamental rights prevail over restrictions under special laws:
  • The Tripura HC had relied on Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the SC's ruling [State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh (2026)] while rejecting bail.
  • The apex court clarified -
    • Statutory restrictions on bail cannot override constitutional guarantees under Articles 21 and 22.
    • Where personal liberty is violated, restrictions under Section 37 must give way to constitutional protections.
    • The constitutional courts can grant bail where prolonged incarceration infringes fundamental rights despite statutory restrictions [Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021)].
    • Thus, special legislation cannot legitimise unconstitutional detention.
• CCTV surveillance to prevent custodial violence:
  • Serious human rights violations often occur during investigations, when authorities attempt to extract evidence or confessions through coercive methods.
  • The SC directs -
    • CCTV cameras with audio and video recording and night-vision facilities in police stations.
    • Similar arrangements in offices of investigative agencies such as the CBI, NIA and ED.
    • Preservation of CCTV footage for at least 18 months.

Significance of the Judgment:

• Strengthening personal liberty: Prevents arbitrary detention through manipulation of formal arrest records.
• Judicial accountability: Strengthens the role of magistrates in scrutinising detention and police remand.
• Preventing custodial abuse: Reduces the possibility of torture, coercion and illegal interrogation outside judicial oversight.
• Rule of law: Establishes that executive convenience and investigative requirements cannot override constitutional safeguards.
• Uniform application: Ensures that constitutional protections apply irrespective of the nature of the offence or the special law involved.

Context

• India’s demonetisation of November 8, 2016, withdrew ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes, representing approximately 86% of currency in circulation by value, with only four hours’ notice.
• The objectives included curbing black money, counterfeit currency and promoting digital payments.
• However, the exercise created a massive liquidity shock in a cash-dependent economy.
• Although nearly 99.3% of demonetised currency returned to the banking system, the temporary cash shortage disrupted economic activities and essential consumption.

Demonetisation Effect on Medicine Consumption

• Understanding Differences in Medicine Consumption
  • Research published in the Journal of Economics and Management Strategy examines pharmaceutical consumption during demonetisation using the All India Organisation of Chemists and Druggists (AIOCD) database.
  • It covers monthly sales across 805 pharmaceutical firms, 31 regions and 18 illness categories.
  • The study distinguishes between:
    • Chronic medicines, which are purchased regularly for long-term illnesses, allowing consumers to compare prices and identify affordable alternatives.
    • Acute medicines, which are required for sudden illnesses such as infections, pain and gastrointestinal problems, leaving little opportunity to postpone purchases or search for alternatives.
  • This difference is explained through search costs, the time and resources required to identify suitable products and compare prices.
  • Consumers purchasing chronic medicines can plan their expenditure, whereas acute medicine purchases are generally urgent and unanticipated.
• Evidence of Reduced Medicine Consumption
  • Using a difference-in-differences research design, the study found that acute medicine sales volume declined by approximately 3.6%, while sales value fell by 3.1% relative to chronic medicines.
  • The decline was not caused by products disappearing from the market or increasing prices.
  • The number of unique products and the interquartile range of prices remained unchanged.
  • This indicates an intensive-margin contraction, meaning consumers purchased smaller quantities of available medicines.
  • Prescription data from IQVIA and disease-outbreak information from the Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme (IDSP) also revealed no significant changes in prescription trends or acute disease outbreaks.
  • Thus, the decline was associated with cash constraints rather than reduced medical requirements.
• Healthcare Vulnerability in a Cash-Dependent Economy
  • India's substantial out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure makes households particularly vulnerable to sudden financial disruptions.
  • Unlike insured populations in developed economies, many Indian families directly finance medicines and treatment.
  • Consequently, medicines may remain available and prices stable, yet patients may be unable to purchase them because of inadequate cash.
  • Therefore, market availability does not guarantee actual healthcare access.

Lessons for the Future

• Assessing the Distributional Consequences of Monetary Policy
  • Currency replacement exercises may pursue legitimate objectives, including reducing counterfeit currency, improving tax compliance and encouraging digital transactions.
  • However, policymakers must evaluate their wider social consequences.
  • Research by Das and other economists indicates that demonetisation generated only modest tax gains.
  • Moreover, the return of almost all withdrawn currency raises questions about the extent of its effectiveness in achieving its stated objectives.
  • The pharmaceutical findings demonstrate that economic disruptions affect different categories of consumers unequally.
  • Therefore, distributional consequences must be assessed alongside monetary and administrative objectives.
• Strengthening Public Health Infrastructure
  • The study identifies public health infrastructure as an important buffer against liquidity shocks.
  • Regions with weaker public healthcare facilities experienced larger declines in acute medicine consumption.
  • Several initiatives can strengthen healthcare resilience:
    • PM Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendras improve access to affordable generic medicines.
    • AB-PMJAY provides financial protection against eligible hospitalisation expenses.
    • UPI-based digital payments facilitate cashless transactions at pharmacies.
    • However, digital payments cannot completely replace cash because of inadequate connectivity, limited digital literacy and unequal banking access.
    • Future currency operations should incorporate health-sector safeguards, including emergency credit facilities for pharmacies, uninterrupted medicine supplies and accessible digital payment systems.

The Way Forward: Building Evidence-Based Public Policy

• Although pharmaceutical sales data reveal changes in medicine consumption, they do not establish the direct consequences for household health outcomes.
• Reduced medicine purchases may lead to delayed treatment, worsening illnesses and additional medical complications.
• India therefore needs integrated consumption-health databases linking household expenditure, prescriptions, medicine purchases and health outcomes.
• Additionally, pre-registered evaluation protocols should accompany large-scale economic interventions.
• These would establish measurable indicators, identify vulnerable populations and facilitate independent assessments of policy consequences.
• Improved data systems would help governments anticipate unintended effects and introduce appropriate safeguards before implementing disruptive economic measures.

Conclusion

• A decade after demonetisation, its experience offers important lessons for monetary policy and public health.
• Although digital payment adoption accelerated and counterfeit currency was withdrawn, sudden cash shortages also disrupted essential consumption.
• For households dependent on out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure, financial disruptions can result in delayed treatment and reduced access to essential medicines.
• Future economic interventions must balance financial objectives with social protection.
• Ultimately, economic reforms must protect essential consumption, ensuring that financial disruptions do not compromise access to medicines and basic healthcare, particularly among vulnerable populations.