The Kerala High Court has set aside parts of the State Government’s guidelines that asked police to produce arrested persons before Judicial Officers, as far as possible, between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. The guidelines also treated production after 5 p.m. as permissible only in “exceptional circumstances.” The Court held that such a protocol may discourage the prompt production of arrested persons that Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 58 of the BNSS are meant to secure. It upheld only the requirement of prior intimation to the Magistrate for production after 5 p.m.
A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar allowed a public interest litigation filed by Advocate P.S. Subeesh.
Background of the Kerala High Court production guidelines case
The petition challenged Clauses 17 to 21 of the guidelines issued through G.O.(Ms) No.202/2023/Home dated 21.09.2023. The guidelines set out the protocol for producing accused persons before doctors in hospitals or before Judicial Officers. In its counter affidavit, the State said the guidelines were framed after the death of Dr. Vandana Das, a house surgeon at the Taluk Hospital Kottarakkara. It added that they followed consultation with stakeholders, including the Kerala Judicial Officers Association and the Indian Medical Association.
While the petition was pending, the State informed the Court that the clauses had been modified through G.O. (Ms) No. 173/2026/HOME dated 24.09.2026. Under the modified Clause 18, accused persons were to be produced, as far as possible, between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., strictly adhering to the 24-hour limit. Clause 19 required prior intimation to the Judicial Officer if any exceptional circumstance called for production after 5 p.m.
Arguments
Advocate T.K. Sandeep, appearing for the petitioner, argued that even the diluted guidelines imposed unreasonable restrictions. He submitted that phrases like “as far as possible” and “exceptional circumstances” placed a presumption of delay and forced police officers and prosecutors to justify lawful action. He contended that the statutory provisions impose no restriction based on court hours or the time of day. He relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, among other decisions.
Director General of Prosecution Asif Ali opposed the plea for the State. He submitted that the Government only intended to ensure production in line with Article 22(2) and Section 58 of the BNSS, and that no right of the accused had been diluted. He also referred to Section 50 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
What the Court held
The Bench noted that the modified guideline wrongly referred to Article 22(1), whereas the provision governing production within 24 hours is Article 22(2). On the time limit itself, the Court observed:
“It needs to be borne in mind that these are outer limits, and not a general entitlement to keep an arrested person in custody until the deadline.”
Relying on Sheela Barse, Joginder Kumar, Prabir Purkayastha and Mihir Rajesh Shah, the Court said the safeguards of an arrested person “arise from the moment of arrest and cannot be postponed merely for administrative convenience.”
The Bench then tested the guidelines against two practical situations. In the first, police may wait until the next morning to produce a person arrested after 5 p.m., which delays legal assistance and the chance to oppose remand. In the second, an investigating officer may defer a time-sensitive recovery of evidence just to meet the preferred court hours. The Court remarked that “The concern is therefore not merely theoretical.”
The Court held that a mention of the 24-hour limit in the guidelines does not answer the objection. It observed:
“Nor can an administrative preference for production during ordinary court hours override the obligation to produce an arrested person without unnecessary delay.”
The Court accepted that the State may adopt reasonable measures for the safety of Judicial Officers. However, it held that “An executive protocol cannot dilute the safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution and the governing statute, whether directly or through procedural arrangements that have the effect of discouraging compliance with them.”
Outcome
The Court set aside the modified guidelines to the extent that they prescribed production, as far as possible, between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. and permitted production after 5 p.m. only in exceptional circumstances. It upheld the requirement of prior intimation to the Magistrate for production after 5 p.m. and directed the State to issue fresh guidelines in line with its findings.
Case Title: Adv. P.S. Subeesh v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case No.: WP(PIL) No. 165 of 2025
Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar
Date: 23.10.2026
