Which one of the following statements relating to protection against arrest and detention of individuals under Article 22 of the Constitution of India is not correct?

Introduction / Context:
This question focuses on the safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention provided under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. These safeguards are essential components of the fundamental right to personal liberty and ensure that executive authorities cannot detain individuals without following due procedure. To answer correctly, you must recall the exact time limit for producing an arrested person before a magistrate and understand to whom these protections apply.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Option a states that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest.
Option b states that an arrested person has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his or her choice.
Option c states that a person in custody must be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of one week of arrest.
Option d states that the protection under Article 22 is not available to a person who is in jail pursuant to a judicial order after conviction.
We must find which statement is not correct according to Article 22.

Concept / Approach:
Article 22(1) and 22(2) lay down procedural safeguards for persons arrested for ordinary offences. These include the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner, and the requirement that the person be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding travel time. It also states that no person can be detained beyond this period without the authority of a magistrate. These protections, however, do not apply in the same manner to enemy aliens and persons detained under preventive detention laws. Once a person is in jail pursuant to a judicial order after trial and conviction, Article 22(1) and 22(2) no longer apply in the same way.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine Option a. Article 22(1) clearly provides that an arrested person must be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of arrest. Therefore Option a correctly reflects the constitutional safeguard.Step 2: Examine Option b. Article 22(1) also states that an arrested person shall not be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his or her choice. Thus Option b is also correct.Step 3: Examine Option c. The Constitution requires that a person arrested and detained in custody be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for travel. The statement in Option c speaks of a period of one week, which is much longer than what Article 22(2) permits. Therefore Option c is not correct.Step 4: Examine Option d. Once a person is in jail following a proper judicial order and conviction after a trial, the protections in Article 22(1) and 22(2) regarding the initial arrest and production before a magistrate do not apply in the same way. The statement in Option d reflects this distinction and is generally treated as correct for exam purposes. Hence the only incorrect statement is Option c.

Verification / Alternative check:
You can verify the key time limit by recalling that the phrase within 24 hours of such arrest appears directly in Article 22(2). This is a cornerstone of the protection against arbitrary detention and is frequently cited in legal discussions and textbooks. Any much longer time period, such as one week, would defeat the purpose of prompt judicial oversight. Standard references also clarify that Article 22 safeguards are intended mainly for the initial stage of arrest and detention, not for persons who are already serving a sentence after a valid judicial order. These references confirm that Option c misstates the constitutional requirement and is therefore incorrect.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a is correct because it faithfully reproduces the Constitutional requirement that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest, so it cannot be the incorrect statement sought by the question.

Option b is consistent with Article 22(1), which ensures the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner, making it a correct statement.
Option d is treated as correct in the exam context because the protections of Article 22(1) and 22(2) are designed for the initial arrest and detention, not for persons who are in jail under a valid judicial sentence, so it is not the incorrect statement here.

Common Pitfalls:
Many candidates misremember the 24 hour time limit and may think of longer periods such as 48 hours or one week when they read questions in a hurry, leading them to accept Option c as correct. Another pitfall is confusion between protections for ordinary arrested persons and special rules for preventive detention or convicted prisoners. To avoid mistakes, firmly remember that prompt production before a magistrate within 24 hours is a central safeguard in Article 22 and any statement that substitutes a much longer period is likely to be wrong in exam questions.

Final Answer:
The incorrect statement is the one that allows production before a magistrate within one week, so the right answer is: Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of one week of such arrest.