Supreme Court bars judges from urging custody in investigations

The Supreme Court held that courts should not direct investigating agencies to seek custodial interrogation of an accused or suspect, warning that sweeping judicial comments about custody can jeopardise liberty.

The bench said decisions about whether to seek custody should remain with the investigating agency and cautioned judges against making broad remarks about other people accused or suspected in a case. The court made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a retired school principal and his wife in a Gujarat case.

The prosecution alleged that the principal manipulated service records to extend his employment by a year and obtain more than ₹10.75 lakh in salary and service benefits. The allegations concern his recorded birth date and retirement date; they are not findings of guilt.

According to the prosecution, Goswami initially recorded his birth date as June 19, 1964, which would have meant retirement on June 30, 2022. Prosecutors alleged that he later changed records to state a birth date of June 19, 1965, enabling another year in service.

The Supreme Court’s custody guidance arose in that bail ruling, but the court’s stated principle concerns judicial comments that could influence investigating agencies’ decisions about custody. A separate Supreme Court matter involving appeals to the Kerala High Court also appears in the coverage, but it concerns a different procedural issue.

On October 15, a division bench of the Kerala High Court rejected applications by Vijayan, Veena and Riyas for permission to appeal against an October 9 order. Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana later allowed them to approach the division bench against that order. India Today’s account focuses on the political response to that Kerala appeal development.

Sunny Joseph defended the preliminary inquiry, said the ruling would ease Congress criticism and urged party leaders to raise criticism through internal forums. He told reporters, “Justice hurried is justice buried,” and described internal party channels as the disciplined way to handle criticism.

The two matters should not be conflated: the Gujarat ruling addresses judicial guidance on custodial interrogation and anticipatory bail, while the Kerala account describes a route for challenging an earlier High Court order and a party leader’s reaction. The coverage does not establish that the Supreme Court’s custody guidance governed the Kerala appeal proceedings.