Any judge or official who makes a wrong decision about detention can be punished under this section.

Courts require proof that the official acted corruptly or maliciously and knew the action was illegal—not just that a mistake was made.

This section applies only to police officers.

It applies broadly to anyone in an office with legal authority to commit people for trial or confinement, which can include magistrates, judges, and jail officials.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 220

repealed

Commitment for trial or confinement by person having authority who knows that he is acting contrary to law

Whoever, being in any office which gives him legal authority to commit persons for trial or to confinement, or to keep persons in confinement, corruptly or maliciously commits any person for trial or to confinement, or keeps any person in confinement, in the exercise of that authority, knowing that in so doing he is acting contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.§

Why this exists

The provision targets abuse of power by those legally entrusted with authority over people's liberty—such as magistrates, judges, or jail officials. British-era lawmakers recognized that such officials could misuse their lawful powers for personal or political reasons, effectively legalizing wrongful detention through official channels. This section was designed to hold such office-holders criminally accountable when they knowingly and deliberately act beyond or against the law, distinguishing honest errors of judgment from deliberate, corrupt misuse of authority.

How courts read it

Courts have consistently held that mere illegality in an order of detention or commitment is not enough to attract this section; the prosecution must additionally prove that the official acted 'corruptly or maliciously' and with actual knowledge that the action was contrary to law. Good-faith errors, even serious ones, are excluded. Judicial officers enjoy substantial protection under other provisions (like the Judicial Officers' Protection Act) unless bad faith or malice is separately established, making convictions under Section 220 rare and dependent on clear evidence of dishonest intent.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Any judge or official who makes a wrong decision about detention can be punished under this section.
Fact: Courts require proof that the official acted corruptly or maliciously and knew the action was illegal—not just that a mistake was made.
Myth: This section applies only to police officers.
Fact: It applies broadly to anyone in an office with legal authority to commit people for trial or confinement, which can include magistrates, judges, and jail officials.