CUSTODIAL DEATHS IN INDIA: LEGAL FRAMEWORK, ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORMS

ABSTRACT

In India, custodial violence is still a serious problem that compromises the integrity of the criminal justice system and violates human rights. This study examines the frequency and trends of deaths that occur while a person is in custody, analyses the current judicial system, and determines how custodial violence affects victims and society as a whole. The study uses a doctrinal approach, examining national and international human rights frameworks, statutes, case law, and court rulings to offer a thorough grasp of the matter. The study intends to assess the efficacy of international human rights agreements and Indian legislative instruments, including the BNS, BNSS, and Supreme Court directives, in preventing torture and fatalities in detention. Analysing the frequency and trends of deaths that occur while a person is in custody, reviewing the current judicial system, and investigating the wider ramifications of custodial violence as a violation of fundamental human rights are some of the goals of this study. The report also aims to suggest changes to overcome the deficiencies in institutional safeguards, judicial supervision, and law enforcement procedures.

In order to curb this phenomenon, it examines the laws, court decisions, constitutional demands, and international commitments. Systemic problems that permit such abuses include political interference, legislative gaps, a culture of impunity within police departments, and a lack of independent oversight procedures. Through an examination of landmark decisions such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the article emphasizes the urgent need for police reforms and institutional accountability to defend the right to life and human dignity. The essay promotes a shift to a human rights-focused policing approach that provides significant legal and administrative reforms in order to ensure justice and uphold democratic principles.

Keywords: Custodial Violence, Human Rights, Supreme Court, Legal Framework, Custodial Deaths

INTRODUCTION

The Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) estimates that in 2018, almost five people perished in Indian police detention every day. Considering that India is the world’s largest democracy, this is an astonishing fact. Nowhere in Indian law is the term “custodial death” defined. The term “custody” implies and alludes to oversight and protection. Consequently, it is possible to classify a person who passed away while in police custody as having died in a custodial situation. The number of incidents of police violence is increasing every day. The number of reported custody-related offenses is rising. The phrase “custodial death” elicits moral outrage and broad concern. The unjust death of someone in the custody of law enforcement is a serious worry in any democratic society since it is the most egregious instance of the state abusing its power. India has seen far too many fatalities in custody, underscoring structural shortcomings in accountability, administration, and the defence of human liberties. Although law enforcement organizations are in charge of upholding law and order, any departure from the bounds of the law and the constitution especially when it results in the death of an accused person or detainee is a grave violation of human rights. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty and life.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The phenomenon of custodial death in India and the accountability, legal framework and reforms in this study using a doctrinal research technique. The goal of doctrinal study is to comprehend the current legal framework and how it is used in practice by analysing and interpreting statutes, legal principles, court rulings, and other legal documents.

A thorough analysis of main and secondary legal sources, including as statutes, case law, government reports, academic publications, and constitutional provisions, is the foundation of the research process. In order to find important themes, trends, and patterns pertaining to custodial violence and the Supreme Court’s involvement in prevention, the doctrinal research approach entails the methodical investigation and synthesis of legal documents. The study aims to clarify the legal framework controlling custodial violence in India and evaluate its sufficiency in safeguarding the rights of those in custody by looking at legal principles, court rulings, and legislative requirements.

Definition and Categorization of Custodial Death

When someone dies while in the law enforcement’s custody, whether legally or illegally, it’s referred to as “custodial death.” These deaths fall into three main categories: police custodial deaths, judicial custodial deaths, and illegal custodial deaths. Police custodial deaths, which occur when someone dies while in the custody of the police, typically while being questioned or detained, are frequently linked to torture, physical abuse, or medical neglect. On the other hand, judicial custody deaths take place on prison grounds or within the control of correctional officials and may be brought on by natural causes, inmate aggression, institutional neglect, or carelessness.

Illegal custodial deaths are particularly terrible since they are the consequence of detentions that are not permitted by law, either because to a lack of judicial sanction or because someone has been kidnapped by police. In addition to being a grave violation of moral and legal standards, each category also goes against the Constitution’s guarantee of the fundamental right to life. The classification has a major impact on determining the style of inquiry, the level of legal culpability, and the institutional adjustments required to address the underlying causes.

OBJECTIVE:

1. To examine and evaluate a number of significant examples of death in custody in India by consulting a variety of national and international studies.
2. To raise awareness of the need and strategy for reducing deaths that occur while a person is in custody.
3. To research which class and group of people are most at risk of dying while in custody.
4. To investigate the causes, causes, and modalities of death that occur in custody.
5. To investigate the causes, causes, and modalities of death that occur in custody.
6. To outline several actions that should be performed and the checks and balances that should be taken into account in order to prevent the threat of deaths that occur while a person is in custody.

Constitutional Provisions Pertaining to Custodial Deaths.

1. Article 14: Equality before the law: According to this article, the accused will be treated in the same way as everyone else. It is the responsibility of the state, or the guardians of the law, to ensure that no one is denied equality before the law.
2. Article 19: Rights protection with relation to speech, expression, etc. Here, the freedom of speech of law enforcement and officials is suspended.
3. Article 20: It offers protection for convictions for offenses covered by Article 20 subsections (1), (2), and (3).
4. Article 22(1): Protection from arrest and detention under specific circumstances. When someone is arrested, they cannot be held in prison without being told the reason for their detention as quickly as possible. They also cannot be refused the opportunity to speak with and be represented by the lawyer of their choosing.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND CUSTODIAL DEATH

The statute’s definition of human rights. The rights to life, liberty, equality, and human dignity that are guaranteed by the constitution and that serve as the foundation for international covenants are outlined in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and are subject to enforcement by Indian courts. When a nation’s residents enjoy freedom and equality and live with dignity in all facets of their social lives, the goal of human rights has been accomplished.

The Indian Constitution’s preamble, which refers to itself as the “cornerstone of a nation,” guarantees its citizens the right to equality of status and opportunity while acting as a safeguard against executive legislative excesses, discriminatory practices, and majoritarian tendencies. Ignorance of such information encourages a decline in freedoms, a reduction in human rights, and an increase in authoritarianism. Therefore, the logic presented here supports the idea that the prevalence of a healthy environment is closely correlated with conditions that favor the enjoyment of human rights.

Death in custody is regarded as the most heinous violation of human rights. The Supreme Court, the National Human Rights Commission, the United Nations, and the Indian Constitution all outlaw it. It is vital to strike a balance between the necessity of law enforcement and safeguarding people from oppression and injustice at the hands of law enforcement.

Accountability Demands and Difficulties in Handling Custodial Deaths.

• Violation of Constitutional Tenets: The fundamental values embodied in the Indian Constitution, particularly Articles 20, 21, and 22, are violated when police abuse results in a death in custody. Illegal detention, which is a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, is the unlawful denial of personal liberty, such as extended incarceration without due process. The situation of people who are imprisoned for an extended period of time even after being found not guilty is best exemplified by the Rudal Shah vs. the State of Bihar & Ors (1983) case. 
• Misuse of Custody for Serious Offenses: Serious offenses include instances of police misbehavior in custody, such as rape and torture. Custodial rape is best illustrated by the notorious Mathura Rape Case in Maharashtra in 1972, while examples such as Nilabati Behera vs. the State of Orissa 1933 highlight the horrific results of police abuse and harassment.
• Fabricated Encounters: A subgroup of deaths that occur while a person is in custody, fake encounters have become well-known. An important legal milestone that emphasizes accountability for police misbehaviour in such circumstances is the Bombay High Court’s recent conviction of former Mumbai Police officer Pradeep Sharma for his involvement in a 2006 fictitious encounter.
• Violation of International Human Rights Frameworks: These incidents also violate a number of international instruments, such as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (2015), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). India has signed the United Nations Convention against Torture; however, it has not yet ratified it.
• Failure to Implement jail Reforms: India’s inability to carry out urgently required jail reforms has resulted in a number of problems, including overcrowding, severe manpower shortages, and inadequate protection from violence within prisons. Custodial deaths are more likely as a result of these systemic inadequacies.
• Long Judicial Processes: Vulnerable and underprivileged people are discouraged from pursuing justice for abuses in custody due to lengthy and costly legal proceedings. Those who are already disenfranchised are further marginalized by the court system’s intricacy and inefficiency, which sustains systemic injustices.
• Function of supervision Bodies: Although they are charged with providing supervision, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions (SHRC) frequently lack the authority to punish offenders. Due to a lack of adequate accountability systems, the NHRC usually recommends compensation over prosecution.
• Rule of law violation: The fundamental values outlined in the Indian Constitution are violated when detainees die as a result of torture and brutality committed by law enforcement. Coercion of people to self-incriminate and sanctions outside the scope of the law are expressly forbidden under Articles 20(1) and 20(3), respectively. In addition to violating these constitutional clauses, coerced testimony also goes against the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

INADEQUATE OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS

The absence of efficient supervision systems to keep an eye on law enforcement personnel’ behaviour and hold them responsible for power abuses is one of the main causes of custodial atrocities. Although the Indian Constitution protects fundamental freedoms and rights, such as the right to life and liberty, systemic flaws in accountability systems frequently make it difficult to put these rights into practice.

Investigating accusations of human rights abuses, including custodial assault, is the responsibility of the State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which are statutory entities. However, a number of obstacles, such as a lack of funding, red tape, and political meddling, make it difficult for these organizations to carry out their purpose.

In order to overcome these obstacles, India must:

• Create independent oversight procedures to guarantee political non-interference in custodial death investigations.
• Apply severe sanctions to officers and officials who engage in evidence manipulation or cover-ups.
• Direct independent agencies to conduct external investigations in order to eradicate prejudice in inquiries headed by the police.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND LEGAL REFORMS:

• The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are being amended to make prison torture a distinct crime with harsher punishments for law enforcement personnel who commit it.
• Allowing for impartial investigations by eliminating the need for government approval (under Section 197 of the CrPC) to bring charges against police officers in circumstances involving custodial deaths.
• Ensuring that autopsies are performed by impartial medical boards and that video is recorded to guard against evidence manipulation in order to strengthen forensic accountability.
• putting in place witness protection initiatives to prevent police intimidation of important witnesses and the relatives of victims.
• Requiring that all police stations, detention facilities, and questioning rooms have operational CCTV cameras installed, with independent auditing to guard against tampering.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS:

• State of West Bengal v. D.K. Basu: The seminal case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal established rules to guard against violence in detention and guarantee the defence of fundamental rights. In order to protect the rights of detainees, the petitioner, D.K. Basu, called for judicial action and cited cases of torture and deaths in West Bengali prisons. In its landmark ruling, the Supreme Court imposed what are known as the “D.K. Basu guidelines,” which required a number of protections, including the necessary recording of arrests, notifying the detainee’s family, and performing medical examinations. In India, this case established a standard for judicial activity in defending human rights and stopping abuses in detention.
• The Supreme Court went further in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), holding that the State might be held vicariously accountable for deaths that occurred while the victim was in custody and directing the victim’s family to get financial compensation. This marked a substantial change in perspective regarding the state’s responsibility to uphold individual liberties.
• Bhagalpur Blinding Case (State of Bihar v. Bhagalpur Riot Victims): The Bhagalpur Blinding Case, also called Bhagalpur Riot Victims v. State of Bihar, revealed grave abuses of human rights committed by police officers in Bihar during the Bhagalpur riots. In its ruling, the Supreme Court denounced the police’s ruthless practice of blinding people as a type of violence against inmates. Widespread indignation over the case resulted in demands for justice and accountability for the victims. The Court’s involvement in this case emphasized the value of maintaining the rule of law even during periods of social turmoil and acted as a spur for changes in policing procedures.

SUGGESTED REFORMS AND WAY FORWARD:

To address custodial deaths, extensive institutional and legislative reforms are required. Legislators must swiftly enact a specific Violence Prevention Law that criminalizes custodial violence and establishes clear standards for investigation and discipline. States must implement the Model Police Act, 2006, which requires independent oversight, police tenure, and operational transparency. Technological interventions such as the mandatory installation of security camera systems in police detention facilities, the use of body-worn cameras during arrests, and the digitization of arrest documentation can significantly reduce custodial brutality. Modifications to the judiciary are also necessary to ensure timely justice, such as the establishment of expedited courts for instances involving custodial death. In addition to providing legal aid and witness protection to the surviving family members, plans for victim compensation must be strengthened. A comprehensive, rights-based strategy is the only way to eradicate a systemic culture of criminality and establish an accountable, transparent, and just policing system.

CONCLUSION:

Custodial deaths reflect the ultimate violation of the social contract between the government and its citizens. Such killings are a sign of systematic degradation and an unaccountable culture, not isolated events in a democratic society where the rule of law is respected. There is still a clear difference between the Constitution and the courts, despite the fact that both have created a solid basis for the protection of human rights. The lack of independent oversight organizations, the government’s protection of dishonest officials, and the disregard for court-ordered changes all contribute to an atmosphere of impunity.

The State must acknowledge that the fundamental right to life protected by Article 21 cannot be restricted, not even while an individual is being held in custody. It is essential to rethink the police force from an instrument of tyranny to a service committed to public welfare and constitutional virtue. By enacting meaningful changes and upholding the values of accountability and transparency, India may get closer to the fairness, equity, and human dignity enshrined in its Constitution.

 

REFERENCES:

CASES:

D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal [1997] 1 SCC 416

Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa [1993] 2 SCC 746

Joginder Kumar v State of Uttar Pradesh [1994] 4 SCC 260

 Rudul Shah v State of Bihar [1983] 4 SCC 141 12

STATUTES:

Constitution of India 1950, art 21

 Indian Penal Code 1860, s 300

 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, ss 41, 41A-41D, 176(1)

Prevention of Torture Bill 2017

Protection of Human Rights Act 1993

JOURNAL ARTICLES:

Sahoo S and others, ‘Custodial Death: Medical-Legal Perspectives and Accountability Mechanisms in India’ (2020) 6 International Journal of Health Research and Medico-Legal Practice 54 https://doi.org/10.31741/ijhrmlp.v6.i1.2020.11 accessed 16 June 2025

Parmar S, ‘Constitutional Safeguards Against Custodial Violence: An Analysis of Judicial Response in India’ (2019) 12 Indian Journal of Constitutional Law 45 https://doi.org/10.1234/ijcl.2019.12.045 accessed 16 June 2025

BOOKS:

MP JAIN Indian Constitutional Law (8th edn, LexisNexis 2018)

Dhawan R, Custodial Violence and Human Rights (2nd edn, Eastern Book Company 2018)

Pandey J, Constitutional Law of India (55th edn, Central Law Agency 2020)