How far do the new criminal laws strengthen or weaken the safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention? Illustrate.

Article 22 guarantees three things to an arrested person: the grounds of arrest, a lawyer of choice, and production before a magistrate within 24 hours [1]. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replaced the CrPC. It largely keeps these safeguards but widens police discretion in ways that weaken them in practice.

Where safeguards are retained or strengthened

• 24-hour production rule retained: the BNSS keeps the statutory duty to produce an arrested person before a magistrate [2]. This keeps the constitutional minimum of Article 22(2) in the statute [1].
• Continuity of the legal framework: Section 144 CrPC is carried over as Section 163 BNSS [3]. This means existing judgments still apply to it.
• Judicial review intact: Anuradha Bhasin (2020) held that prohibitory orders cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression and must be proportionate [4]. Courts still apply this test under the new law.

Where safeguards are weakened

• Staggered police custody: the 15 days of police custody can now be authorised in parts during the first 40 or 60 days of detention [2]. Before, it was confined to the first 15 days. The longer window increases the risk of coercion.
• New "detain or remove" power: police can detain anyone who resists or ignores their directions. In petty cases the person may simply be released [2]. Short protest detentions can therefore end before the 24-hour judicial check ever begins.
• Handcuffing: PRS noted that these provisions may conflict with Supreme Court judgments and NHRC guidelines [2].
• Illustration: in October 2026, a Special Bench of the Supreme Court ordered the Union government and Delhi Police to stop illegal detentions after a clampdown that swept up thousands. It also ordered the Section 163 orders around courts lifted [5]. The Article 22 safeguards, designed for one arrested person, did not work for a crowd.

Assessment The new laws keep the formal safeguards but tilt discretion towards the police. Overall they weaken protection more than they strengthen it.

The new laws keep the constitutional core of protection against arrest, but procedural flexibility has diluted it. Mandatory records of every person detained, time limits on Section 163 orders, and a review of the provisions PRS flagged would bring the law in line with the proportionality standard of Bhasin [4]. They would also uphold Article 21's promise that liberty is the rule and detention the exception.