Question map
With reference to India, consider the following statements : 1. Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate and such accused is locked up in police station, not in jail. 2. During judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without the approval of the court. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
The correct answer is Option 2.
Statement 1 is incorrect: Judicial custody refers to a situation where the accused is under the custody of the relevant Magistrate. Unlike police custody, where the individual is kept in a police station lock-up, in judicial custody, the accused is housed in a jail (prison) under the supervision of the court. The police do not have physical custody of the person in this stage.
Statement 2 is correct: During judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case does not have an inherent right to interrogate the suspect at will. Since the accused is under the court's protection, the police must seek prior permission or approval from the Magistrate to conduct any interrogation. The court may grant such permission under specific conditions and monitored timelines to prevent custodial harassment and ensure the rights of the accused are protected.
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis question stems from 'Applied Polity'—specifically the practical nuances of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) often discussed in newspapers during high-profile arrests. While standard books define Article 22, they rarely detail the operational difference between 'Police' and 'Judicial' custody, making this a test of your observation of current legal events.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: In India, does the term "judicial custody" mean the accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate?
- Statement 2: In India, does "judicial custody" mean the accused is kept locked up in a police station and not in jail?
- Statement 3: In India, during judicial custody is the police officer in charge of the case prohibited from interrogating the accused without the court's approval?
- Contrasts police custody with judicial custody, showing judicial custody is a different form of detention ordered by the Magistrate.
- Indicates the Magistrate may 'extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused', implying custody is not the Magistrate physically holding the accused but a court-ordered detention.
- States custody can be 'in the custody of the police or in any other custody authorised by the Magistrate or the Court', distinguishing custody types and showing Magistrate authorises custody rather than personally holding the accused.
- Supports the view that 'judicial custody' refers to custody authorised by the court, not custody by the magistrate personally.
- Explicitly explains that custody during transit remand cannot be 'judicial custody' because the police are exclusively entrusted with the accused, demonstrating a clear distinction between police custody and judicial custody.
- By distinguishing the two, it implies judicial custody is not custody exercised by the police (or the magistrate physically) but a separate court-ordered status.
Discusses Article 22(2) safeguards and says detention beyond the statutory period requires 'the authority of a magistrate'.
A student could combine this with the idea that custody authorisations coming from a magistrate imply a distinction between police custody and custody under judicial/magisterial authority.
States an arrested person must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours and has rights in custody.
Using the 24-hour production rule, a student might infer roles of police versus magistrate after arrest and ask whether 'judicial custody' begins once the magistrate remands the accused.
Defines 'Judicial Magistrates' as members of the judiciary under high court control, highlighting that magistrates are judicial officers, not police.
A student could use this to reason that 'judicial' custody would be associated with control by these judicial officers rather than the police.
Identifies the Chief Judicial Magistrate as head of criminal courts within the district and notes existence of metropolitan magistrates.
Knowing magistrates head criminal courts, a student could extend that custody ordered by courts/magistrates is distinct from police custody and labelled 'judicial'.
Describes the Court of Judicial Magistrate as the criminal court at the lowest level, indicating a formal judicial structure handling criminal matters.
A student might infer that custody tied to judicial proceedings and magistrates' remand orders falls within this judicial structure, supporting a distinction between police vs. magistrate custody.
- Explicitly states that custody during a transit remand "cannot be judicial custody" because the police are exclusively entrusted with the accused for producing him to the Magistrate.
- Therefore custody while the accused is with the police (e.g., held for production) is described as police custody, not judicial custody — distinguishing the two.
- Shows the legal framework distinguishes between "police" and "judicial" custody (S.167 Cr. P.C. can order detention either in police/judicial custody).
- This distinction supports that "judicial custody" is a different category from police custody (i.e., not simply being kept by police in a station).
- Describes limits on detention in police custody and actions to be taken on arrival at the police station, indicating police custody involves detention at a police station for investigation.
- By clarifying police custody as detention in police station and time-limited, it implies judicial custody is not the same as being held in a police station.
This source presents the exact formulation of the claim as a statement to be judged (judicial custody = in custody of magistrate and locked up in police station, not in jail).
A student could treat this as an asserted definition and compare it with other textbook definitions or statutory language (police custody vs judicial custody) to test its accuracy.
Explains procedural safeguards after arrest (production before magistrate within 24 hours), highlighting a legal distinction between arrest/detention by police and involvement of a magistrate.
Use this to infer that 'judicial' custody likely involves magistrate/judicial authority rather than only police authority, and check whether location (police station vs jail) follows from that distinction.
Discusses Article 22 protections and indicates the magistrate's authority over detention periods and that safeguards apply against police detention.
Combine this with knowledge that Article 22 differentiates police arrest/detention from judicial orders to examine whether 'judicial custody' must mean custody by magistrate in a non-police facility.
Refers to a person being in 'judicial custody' for many years (Machal Lalung), implying judicial custody can be long-term and tied to the court system rather than short police detention.
A student can contrast the practical duration and setting of police remand (short, investigative) with long remands or court-ordered detention to infer typical locations (jail vs police station).
Notes that persons 'in jail or in police custody' are distinct categories (both allowed to contest elections), indicating common-sense distinction between jail and police custody as different forms of detention.
Use this explicit distinction to question the claim that judicial custody is equivalent to police-station confinement—if jail and police custody are treated separately, 'judicial custody' might map to one of these and should be verified.
- Specifically states the officer in charge of a police station may investigate a cognizable case without a Magistrate's order, indicating police investigative/interrogative powers do not always require prior court approval.
- Directly pertains to the authority of the officer in charge to carry out investigation-related functions absent a magistrate's authorization.
- Requires that a person arrested be produced before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay and restricts police detention to a limited period unless there is a special order of a Magistrate, showing the court's role in ongoing custody decisions but not an explicit bar on interrogation.
- Context indicates magistrate orders are required for prolonged detention, but it does not state interrogation in judicial custody is prohibited without court approval.
Explains Article 22 procedural safeguards after arrest — person must be informed of grounds, allowed to consult a lawyer, and produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
A student could combine this with the rule that judicial custody involves a magistrate to ask whether police interrogation is limited once the accused is in magistrate custody.
States similar procedural limits: arrested/detained persons must be told reasons, produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, and have right to consult a lawyer.
One could use this to infer that access to police for interrogation may be constrained by the accused's right to counsel and magisterial oversight during judicial custody.
Gives a (textbook) definition/question indicating 'judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate', linking custody status to the magistrate rather than police.
A student could combine this with Article 22 safeguards to question whether police retain the power to interrogate once custody is judicial rather than police custody.
Notes that courts can intervene if police investigation is not proper and may hand over investigation to an independent agency (CBI).
This suggests judicial oversight of investigations exists; a student might extend this to consider that courts can control or restrict police actions (including interrogation) in custody situations.
- [THE VERDICT]: Tricky but solvable. It exploits the common confusion between 'lock-up' and 'jail'. Source: Newspaper Explainers (e.g., 'Explained' columns on arrests) rather than Laxmikanth.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The procedural lifecycle of an arrest under Article 22 and CrPC Section 167 (Remand).
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: 1. Police Custody (PC) = Police Station lock-up (max 15 days initially). 2. Judicial Custody (JC) = Central/District Jail (under court's watch). 3. Interrogation in JC requires Magistrate's permission. 4. Default Bail (Right to bail if charge sheet not filed in 60/90 days). 5. Transit Remand (Moving accused between jurisdictions).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When reading about an arrest in the news, trace the timeline: Arrest → 24hrs → Magistrate → Remand (PC or JC). Ask 'Where are they sleeping tonight?' and 'Who controls them?' to internalize the process.
Distinguishes custody held by a court/magistrate from custody held by the police and clarifies who physically detains an accused.
High-yield for questions on arrest and detention: it connects constitutional safeguards (e.g., Article 22) with criminal procedure and remand practice. Mastering this helps answer questions on who exercises detention authority, remand types, and protections against illegal detention.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties IJl > p. 134
- Democratic Politics-I. Political Science-Class IX . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 5: DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS > Right to Freedom > p. 82
Specifies the procedural requirement that an arrested person must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours, linking magistrate oversight to custodial processes.
Directly relevant to civil liberties and procedural law questions in UPSC mains and interviews: it ties arrest procedure to judicial supervision, habeas corpus remedies, and police accountability. Knowing this enables precise answers on arrest safeguards and timelines.
- Democratic Politics-I. Political Science-Class IX . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 5: DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS > Right to Freedom > p. 82
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties IJl > p. 134
Defines magistrates' jurisdictional position and their role as members of the judiciary rather than as custodial jail authorities.
Important for administrative law and judiciary-related questions: it links court hierarchy, magistrate powers, and district criminal administration. Understanding magistrates' place in the system helps explain who can authorize detention and how magistrates supervise criminal processes.
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 35: Subordinate Courts > STRUCTURE AND JURISDICTION > p. 364
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 21: ORGANISATION OF THE JUDICIARY IN GENERAL > No Federal Distribution of Judicial Powers. > p. 336
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > The Supreme Court of India in National Legal Services Authority v UOI, observed: > p. 187
Distinguishes types of custody an accused may be placed under and clarifies who exercises physical detention and judicial oversight.
High-yield for law and polity questions: understanding custody categories helps answer questions on arrest, remand, prisoners' rights and procedural safeguards; links to criminal procedure, magistrates' powers and detention law; enables candidates to critique assertions about where detainees are held and who authorises detention.
- Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 2: RIGHTS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION > THE IMPORTANCE OF RIGHTS > p. 27
- Democratic Politics-I. Political Science-Class IX . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 5: DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS > Right to Freedom > p. 82
Specifies the procedural safeguard that an arrested person must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
Vital for questions on arrest procedures, fundamental rights and limits on police detention; connects to Article 22 protections and to remedies for illegal detention; useful for fact-based and analytical UPSC questions on civil liberties and police powers.
- Democratic Politics-I. Political Science-Class IX . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 5: DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS > Right to Freedom > p. 82
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties IJl > p. 134
Establishes the court's power to examine legality of imprisonment and to secure release where detention lacks legal justification.
Core constitutional concept: frequently tested in mains and interview; links to Articles 32/226, safeguards under Article 22, and human rights; equips aspirants to handle case-based and theoretical questions about unlawful detention and state accountability.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA > p. 128
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties IJl > p. 134
Article 22 requires that an arrested person be informed of arrest grounds, have access to counsel, and be produced before a magistrate — core protections that frame custody and interrogation rules.
High-yield for polity and criminal procedure questions: it links fundamental rights (Article 21/22) to arrest/detention procedures, police powers, and judicial oversight. Mastery helps answer case-based questions on legality of detention, admissibility of statements, and safeguards against arbitrary arrest.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties IJl > p. 134
- Democratic Politics-I. Political Science-Class IX . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 5: DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS > Right to Freedom > p. 82
Default Bail (Statutory Bail) under Section 167(2) CrPC: If the police fail to file a charge sheet within 60 or 90 days (depending on the crime), the accused has an absolute, indefeasible right to be released on bail.
Use 'Authority-Location' Logic. Statement 1 says the accused is in the custody of the *Magistrate* (Judiciary) but locked in a *Police Station* (Executive). This is a conflict of interest. If the Magistrate holds custody, the accused must be in a neutral facility (Jail), not the investigator's den.
Mains GS-2 (Social Justice/Polity): Custodial Violence. Most custodial deaths occur during 'Police Custody' (interrogation phase), not 'Judicial Custody'. This links to the DK Basu Guidelines and the argument for separating investigation from law and order.