Abstract:
Despite being the world’s largest democracy, India continues to witness horrifying incidents of custodial deaths and tortureoften at the hands of those entrusted to uphold the law. While the Constitution guarantees dignity and life under Article 21, custodial violence exposes the cracks in the nation’s criminal justice system. This article examines the systemic failures, judicial interventions, and urgent need for structural reform to end what has become one of the darkest stains on India’s democracy.
Introduction:
Custodial violence is not just an act of brutalityit is a betrayal of the very Constitution that promises justice, liberty, and dignity to every individual. Every time a person is tortured, maimed, or killed in custody, it is not merely the law that is broken; it is the social contract between the citizen and the state that collapses.
India’s prisons and police stations have long been theatres of systemic abuse. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recorded hundreds of custodial deaths annually, while data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) continues to reveal shocking trendsyet convictions remain negligible.
The problem is not the absence of laws or judicial directions; it is the culture of impunity that sustains custodial violence. From the iconic DK Basu v. State of West Bengal to the tragic JayarajBennix case, India’s legal landscape has witnessed repeated reminders that justice cannot coexist with torture. Yet, little seems to have changed.
Meaning and Scope of Custodial Violence:
Custodial violence refers to any form of physical, psychological, or sexual abuse inflicted by law enforcement authorities while a person is in custody—whether police, judicial, or protective custody. It includes torture during interrogation, inhuman prison conditions, sexual assault, and extrajudicial killings (encounters).
While often framed as “aberrations,” these are systemic manifestations of a power structure that dehumanises the accused. In India, where arrest and pre-trial detention are frequent, custody becomes a site where rights are easily suspended and accountability is evasive.
Constitutional and Legal Safeguards:
India’s Constitution and criminal procedure laws contain robust safeguards meant to prevent such abuse—at least on paper.
- Article 20(3) protects against self-incrimination.
- Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted to include protection from torture and custodial violence.
- Article 22 provides procedural safeguards during arrest and detention, such as the right to be informed of grounds of arrest and to consult a lawyer.
- Sections 41to 60A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) regulate arrest procedures and mandate medical examination of accused persons.
- The Indian Evidence Act (Section 24) renders confessions obtained through coercion inadmissible.
The NHRC and State Human Rights Commissions were established to monitor violations, and Section 176(1A) CrPC mandates judicial inquiry in every case of custodial death or rape.
Yet, despite these legal protections, the ground reality is grim. The gap between law and enforcement reflects a deeper malaise—the normalization of torture as a tool of investigation.
The Judicial Response: From DK Basu to Jayaraj and Bennix:
The Indian judiciary has consistently condemned custodial torture, yet the persistence of such cases exposes the limits of judicial pronouncements without systemic enforcement.
1. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
This landmark case laid down 11 procedural guidelines for arrest and detention, including:
Arrest memo countersigned by a family member or witness,
Right to inform relatives,
Medical examination every 48 hours, and
Mandatory judicial oversight.
The Supreme Court declared that custodial torture violates Article 21 and that “no civilized nation can permit police to become law unto themselves.” Despite this, implementation has remained inconsistent, especially in rural and semi-urban areas.
2. Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (2011)
The Court strongly condemned fake encounters, stating that police officers committing extra-judicial killings deserve the death penalty, as they betray public trust and constitutional duty. The judgment reaffirmed that even accused persons are entitled to constitutional protection.
3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2014)
This case involved the alleged “encounter killings” in Maharashtra. The Court laid down guidelines for independent investigation of encounter deaths, recognizing that state agencies cannot investigate themselves impartially.
4. Jayaraj and Bennix Case (2020)
The brutal death of a father-son duo in Tamil Nadu police custody shook the nation’s conscience. They were detained for allegedly violating lockdown rules, but the violence they suffered exposed the routine nature of police brutality in India. The case prompted rare public outrage and reinforced calls for police reform.
Together, these cases illustrate both the judiciary’s moral clarity and the state’s administrative apathy.
The Scale of the Problem: Data and Denial.
Official data only scratches the surface of the crisis.
According to NCRB’s “Crime in India 2022”, there were 175 custodial deaths recorded that year. However, not a single conviction was reported under Section 330 or 331 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession).
Between 2010 and 2020, more than 1,700 custodial deaths were reported by NHRC, but fewer than 2% resulted in convictions.
Many cases go unreported due to intimidation, falsified medical reports, and internal police cover-ups.
This pattern reveals a disturbing truth: custodial deaths are not accidents; they are outcomes of structural impunity.
The use of “third-degree methods” during interrogation remains normalized in police culture, often justified as necessary to extract confessions. This mindset thrives on weak oversight, political patronage, and the absence of independent investigation mechanisms.
Causes of Custodial Violence: A Systemic Breakdown
The roots of custodial violence lie deep within India’s criminal justice architecture.
1. Colonial Policing Legacy
The Indian police system was designed under the Police Act of 1861, primarily to control rather than serve the population. This authoritarian DNA persists, with emphasis on coercion, not community trust.
2. Investigative Pressure and Lack of Training
Police often operate under immense pressure to “solve” crimes quickly. With limited forensic resources and training, torture becomes an expedient substitute for scientific investigation.
3. Weak Accountability Mechanisms
Internal departmental inquiries rarely lead to punishment. Even when FIRs are filed, cases are slow, and officers enjoy institutional protection.
4. Judicial Delays
Lengthy trials and poor witness protection discourage victims’ families from pursuing justice. The system favours perpetrators over victims.
5. Societal Apathy
Public outrage is often selective. When victims belong to marginalised groups—Dalits, minorities, the poor—their suffering fails to provoke sustained national concern.
Legal reasoning: The Constitutional Betrayal
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Custodial deaths strike at the core of this right. They are executions without trial, carried out under the watch of the very state entrusted to protect life. The Supreme Court in Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016) reiterated that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity even in custody.
When a person dies or is tortured in custody, the state commits a constitutional betrayal—a failure of both substantive due process (violating dignity) and procedural due process (bypassing legal safeguards).
This betrayal corrodes public faith in the rule of law. When citizens fear the police more than criminals, the state’s legitimacy stands on trial.
The Role of NHRC and State Commissions:
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has played a vital but limited role. It mandates that every custodial death be reported within 24 hours, followed by magisterial inquiry and post-mortem examination. However, compliance is patchy, and its recommendations are advisory, not binding.
State Human Rights Commissions often lack funds, autonomy, and investigative capacity. Consequently, most custodial deaths are buried under bureaucratic silence.
What India needs is statutory teeth—a mechanism where findings of torture or death automatically trigger criminal prosecution, not mere departmental action.
The Police Reform Vacuum:
The issue of custodial violence cannot be isolated from the larger failure to reform policing.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) laid down seven directives for police reform—creation of State Security Commissions, fixed tenure for key officers, separation of investigation from law and order, and transparent appointments.
Yet, most states have failed to implement these directives effectively. Without structural independence and accountability, police forces continue to function under political pressure and with colonial attitudes.
Judicial and Legislative Inertia
Despite the judiciary’s strong words, there has been no comprehensive anti-torture legislation in India.
The Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010, passed by the Lok Sabha, lapsed without Rajya Sabha approval. India has also not ratified the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), despite being a signatory since 1997.
This legal vacuum enables impunity. The existing IPC provisions—Sections 330, 331, 302, and 304—are inadequate because they treat torture as ordinary assault or homicide, not as a distinct human rights violation.
Courts have awarded monetary compensation in some cases under Article 32 and 226, but financial relief cannot substitute for accountability or deterrence.
The Path Forward: Reform and Accountability
Ending custodial violence requires more than moral outrage—it demands institutional redesign and political will. The following measures are crucial:
1. Enact a Comprehensive Anti-Torture Law
A standalone statute should define torture, set penalties, and mandate independent investigation and prosecution. It must shift the burden of proof to the state once injury in custody is established.
2. Independent Investigation Mechanism
Every custodial death should be probed by an independent agency, not the same police department. Judicial oversight should be mandatory.
3. Police Reforms
Implement Prakash Singh directives fully. Ensure transparent recruitment, scientific investigation training, and human rights education in police academies.
4. CCTV and Technological Surveillance
Following Supreme Court directions (2020), all police stations and interrogation rooms must have functional CCTV cameras with 24×7 recording and data preservation protocols.
5. Strengthen NHRC and SHRCs
Empower commissions with binding authority, independent investigative wings, and greater financial autonomy.
6. Public Accountability and Transparency
Police manuals and reports of custodial deaths must be published quarterly. Civil society oversight should be institutionalised through community-police liaison boards.
7. Fast-Track Courts and Victim Support
Dedicated courts for custodial violence cases and legal aid cells can ensure timely justice and witness protection.
Conclusion:
Custodial deaths and torture are not isolated crimes—they are symptoms of institutional rot. When the state itself becomes the perpetrator, justice loses meaning.
The constitutional promise of dignity under Article 21 rings hollow if that dignity is denied to the most vulnerable—the detained, the accused, the voiceless. Every such death erodes the moral fabric of democracy and the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.
India does not lack laws, judgments, or commissions—it lacks accountability, empathy, and political will. The measure of a nation’s civilization, it is said, lies in how it treats its prisoners. By that measure, India still has miles to go.Reform is not optional—it is the constitutional imperative of a Republic that aspires to call itself just. Ending custodial violence is not merely about protecting the rights of the accused; it is about reclaiming the soul of justice itself.
REFFERANCE:
The Hindu.
The Hindustan times.
The times of India
Bar and Bench.
Live law.
https://www.manupatracademy.com/home/online-law-courses
Author Name- Shanmukha Priya
