Published On: August 11th 2025
Authored By: Heer Bhanushali
SVKM’s Pravin Gandhi College of Law
Abstract
The issue of custodial deaths in India is a serious human rights violation that reveals the continuation of the disparity between the constitutional promises and ground realities. Even with a powerful legal framework entrenched under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, there are still some systemic implementation gaps and lapses and the culture of impunity. According to the recent statistics and jurisprudence, the unfair burden on the marginalized populations and the inefficiency of the current protections are evident. This article sheds light on some important judicial interventions, recent sensational cases, and the existent disparity between the legal protection and the actual situation. Lastly, the paper presents a multi-layered reform agenda, including a combination of legal modification, administrative responsibility, and alteration of the policing attitude, to resolve this urgent problem. This article demands a justice system that respects the rule of law even in the confines of custodial deaths by facing the ugly truths about these deaths.
Keywords: Custodial violence, policing culture, state accountability, framework, criminal justice system, torture, victims’ rights.
Introduction
Custodial deaths refer to death of a person in the custody of any law-enforcing agencies or judicial organs in India and are one of the greatest abuse of human rights and the rule of law in India. Custody is envisaged as a temporary loss of freedom and not a punishment by torture or death. However, in the case of several people in India, getting into police or judicial custody turns out to be a lethal experience. Incidents of custodial deaths caused by torture, abuse, medical negligence or unnatural reasons persist in plaguing the Indian justice system. Such incidents cannot be considered just a breach of administrative duty; it is an offense at the core of constitutional values and reveals the vulnerability of the rule of law. The Supreme Court has held firmly that constitutional promises apply to everyone regardless of whether they were suspects or perpetrators of criminal activities. However, custodial deaths are still taking place which apparently demonstrates the limitation of legal protection where the structural inadequacies and vested forms of impunity still prevail.
Recent statistics outline the magnitude and relevance of the issue. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recorded 2,150 fatalities in judicial custody and 155 in police custody during the 2021-22 period, the highest were in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra respectively.[1] Despite these figures being both disturbing and statistically sound, these statistics might still be misleading due to the large number of cases that go unreported or are mislabelled. Such crimes have abysmally low conviction rates and police officers are unlikely to see any other repercussions than mere suspension or investigation by the department. This article attempts to furnish a framework of analysis in comprehending custodial deaths in India. It will study the legal and regulatory environment, point out the systemic inefficiencies and institutional failures and review the recent responses and case studies by the judicial systems. The only practical path towards regaining trust and protecting the welfare of both victims and their families is through a holistic framework that would combine rights-based and community-centred principles.
Legal and Regulatory Landscape
The legal framework of India provides detailed guidelines to secure the rights of those people who are in custody. The combined provisions are meant to guarantee that all individuals under the custody of the state are treated with dignity, fairness, and safety against harm. Even though the nature of these safeguards may be undeniably large, the fact that custodial deaths continue to increase presents a rather eloquent testimony to how much such safeguards have drifted to the status of inapplicability in practice during daily activities.
Constitutional Rights and Judicial Foundations:
- Article 21 – Guarantees a right to life and liberty and has been subject to interpretation by courts to allay tortures and inhumanity even during custody.[2]
- Article 20(3) – Protect people against the risk of being forced to testify against themselves, which in turn prevents contrived testimonies in the wake of interrogation.
- Article 22 – Guarantees the arrested procedural rights, such as the right to know the reasons of arrest, to have access to a lawyer, and to be presented to the magistrate within 24 hours.[3]
Statutory Provisions:
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):
- Section 41 – Regulates arrests and requires prompt production before a magistrate.[4]
- Section 176(1) – Any occurrence of death, disappearance or rape in custody shall require a judicial inquiry to be prompted by the court.[5]
- Section 54 – Medical examination is required as soon as the accused has been arrested.
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
- Section 302 – Contains provision for the culpability of a police officer in case of custodial death.
- Sections 330 and 331 – Specifically criminalize police officers who voluntarily cause hurt or cause grievous hurt in a bid to get a confession.
Indian Evidence Act (1872):
- Sections 24 and 25 – Eliminate the possibility of presenting a confession procured by police pressure and a confession performed during police custody where there is already a risk of coercion and torture.[6]
Pioneering Case Laws:
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) – The Supreme Court gave directions that are binding to arrest and detention procedures such as medical examination, arrest memos and informing relatives.[7]
- Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) – It declared the state liable to custodial deaths and the right to receive compensation.[8]
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) – The Court warned of the tendency to abuse the arrest powers and demanded an intervention of the judiciary in making sure that individuals can enjoy their freedom.[9]
Overall, India has a well-developed legal-regulatory framework when it comes to custodial deaths, but there has been considerable slack in enforcement and adequate implementation that has seen the recurrence of custodial deaths despite all the ostensible protection.
Ground Reality: Gaps in Law Enforcement
India has quite solid laws to prevent custodial abuse, but the reality of poor implementation and structural lapses continues to define large gaps in the guidelines and an abusive cycle of violence and impunity. The most shocking one is undoubtedly underreporting of custodial deaths. Between 2001 and 2020, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) stated that there were 1,888 instances of custodial death. At the same time, independent bodies, like the National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT), estimated that more than five people are killed in custody per day as of 2019, which exceeds the figures given by official reports.[10] This discrepancy can be credited to misclassification, poor recording of cases and outright suppression of cases by the administrative authorities. Less than half of police custodial deaths end up being recorded as a case, and conviction is extremely low. Most deaths are usually explained by suicide, illness or natural causes even when their families claim torture or other foul play.
The Prison Statistics of India (PSI) identified a significant rise in custodial deaths within the past three years, with 60 percent having increased recently, and judicial custody deaths rising by 12 percent in 2021 as compared to 2020.[11] Very few incidents of custodial deaths remain in the hands of proper magisterial inquiry, and even fewer in the area of being prosecuted and punished by officials in charge. Accountability is also compromised by the non-existence of obligatory independent forensic procedures and by the regular nature of accepting police accounts. Even when the Supreme Court has issued directives on the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations as a measure to ward off instances of abuse, there has been mass defiance, with several states failing to file compliance affidavits or operate the system.[12]
The core of such failures is the police culture that views violence as normal and custodial torture as a valid means of investigation or sanction. Academic research and reports by rights groups have detailed how police brutality, use of undue force, and police torture are entrenched in the police institution and are justified as the means to obtain confessions or information. People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) and other watchdogs have in the past come up against opposition by the police departments in supporting the families of the victims where the officers protect their colleagues against any unwarranted investigation and trial. To conclude, custodial death in India is not only an issue of law and procedure but also of a systemic failure in the reporting, oversight and policing culture, which fails to penalize the responsible parties.
From Courtrooms to Cells: Judicial Scrutiny and Recent Custodial Deaths in India
Indian judiciary has become central to the legal remedy of custodial violence and death in cases where other institutional means have proved ineffective. In landmark judgements like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the Supreme Court has pronounced mandatory procedures and clarified about constant duties that are required by the state. Regardless of these precedents, horrors of custodial deaths occur regularly, with impunity. Intervention of the judiciary is not only critical but is often influenced by the visibility of a particular case, pressure by the people or media attention. Practically, court orders are unevenly executed, particularly in the lower courts, where the independence of the institutions is mostly undermined.
Custodial deaths occurring in recent years have ushered in a new concern towards the condition of human rights in the lockups of India. In December 2024, the custodial death of Somnath Suryawanshi in Maharashtra led to a judicial inquiry following the preliminary police report of a heart attack being reported to be refuted by the government hospital[13] The Bombay High Court came to the rescue to monitor[14] Similarly, in May 2025, the Jharkhand High Court warranted compensation and criminal prosecution of the custodial death of Meraj Ansari,[15] The death of Sheikh Shadat in July 2023 in Delhi prompted the High Court to rebuke the police on their failure to observe[16]
Such incidents show the trend, which can be considered systemic: death, followed by the investigation that comes in late, non-transparent inquiry on the departmental level, and ultimate suppression of public discussion. The courts and institutional controls should become proactive instead of reactive. It is only then that the culture of impunity can be brought to heel and the idea of justice brought to those who have succumbed to it behind bars, untried, unheard, and often unnamed.
The Reform Imperative: From Reaction to Prevention
The prevalence of custodial deaths in India is a case of institutional crisis and not merely individual ones, as the pattern of deaths is recurring in nature. The constitutional protection and court cases are in place, but their enforcement is poor and law protection is non-existent until the structure of it is changed. One of the most striking gaps in the human rights protection system is lack of a standalone anti-torture law. Though India signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997, it has not ratified it or enacted a special law criminalising torture. This makes the victims resort to the generic provisions of IPC, which cannot consider the peculiar phenomena of custodial abuse. It is also necessary to reinforce the independent oversight bodies. Police Complaints Authorities mandated by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) have been dysfunctional or non-existent in many states.[17] These institutions should be independent, well equipped, and capable of investigating police misconduct.
Technological measures such as fixed CCTVs in lock-ups can prevent abuse, but this may be only when they are regularly checked and applied. Moreover, law enforcement training should stop focusing on punitive practice but should adopt constitutional values and human rights-based policing. Accountability must also be made real. Officers convicted of custodial abuse must be suspended, criminally charged and lose their benefits of serving. Superiors in the institutions that perpetuate abuse or condone it have to be accountable as well. It is only with law, technology, oversight, and culture change that India can help guarantee custody is no longer where human rights should lie on deathbed.
Conclusion
Custodial deaths are a severe violation of the fabric of the constitution of India and a clear indicator of how determined the country is to uphold justice and human rights. Although there is an extensive legal framework, failures to implement, poor supervision, and culture of impunity have led to the continuation of these deaths. New events call out the necessity to create integrated changes: the adoption of anti-torture laws, increased independent oversight, technological and procedural protections, and policing culture change. Incremental changes are in the past, only drastic systemic changes can regain the confidence of the people and make certain that even the most vulnerable are not denied their right to justice.
References
[1] Nandani Singh, ‘Over 2,150 Cases of Deaths in Judicial Custody in 2021-22: Govt’ (India Today, 23 March 2022) <www.indiatoday.in/india/story/over-2150-cases-of-deaths-in-judicial-custody-govt-1928310-2022-03-22> accessed 16 June 2025.
[2] Ahlawat V and Khan H, ‘Custodial Death With Reference to India Perspective’ (MAZEDAN DIGITAL LIBRARY, 15 March 2024) <https://mdl.mazedan.com/uploads/MSPLR0401002(5-9).pdf> accessed 16 June 2025.
[3] Chaudary H, ‘The Legal Framework Surrounding Custodial Deaths in India » LegalOnus’ (LegalOnus, 15 March 2025) <https://legalonus.com/the-legal-framework-surrounding-custodial-deaths-in-india/> accessed 16 June 2025.
[4] ibid 3
[5] Sneha Mahawar, ‘Custodial Deaths – iPleaders’ (iPleaders, 22 July 2022) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/custodial-deaths/> accessed 16 June 2025.
[6] ibid 5
[7] Ishika Sharma, ‘Custodial Death And Police Accountability In India: Legal Framework, Challenges, And Judicial Response » Lawful Legal’ (Lawful Legal, 22 April 2025) <https://lawfullegal.in/custodial-death-and-police-accountability-in-india-legal-framework-challenges-and-judicial-response/> accessed 16 June 2025.
[8] ‘Custodial Death in India – Legal Implications & Insights | Dhyeya Law’ (Dhyeya Law) <www.dhyeyalaw.in/custodial-death-in-india> accessed 16 June 2025.
[9] ibid 8
[10] Murali Krishnan, ‘Custodial Deaths in India: A Toxic Play of Power – DW – 11/19/2021’ (dw.com, 19 November 2021) <www.dw.com/en/custodial-deaths-in-india-a-toxic-play-of-power-and-class/a-59873741> accessed 17 June 2025.
[11] Eva Verma, ‘An era of guardians becoming perpetrators-custodial deaths’ (Criminal Law Journal | International Journal of Criminal, Common and Statutory Law, 17 March 2024) <www.criminallawjournal.org/article/73/4-1-10-665.pdf> accessed 17 June 2025.
[12] ibid 10
[13] Akhef Mohammed, ‘Custodial death: Provisional autopsy report says shock following multiple injuries | Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar News – Times of India’ (The Times of India, 13 May 2025) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/aurangabad/custodial-death-provisional-autopsy-report-says-shock-following-multiple-injuries/articleshow/116379475.cms> accessed 17 June 2025.
[14] ‘Custodial death of Parbhani protester: Magistrate report reveals police brutality’ (The New Indian Express, 21 March 2025) <www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Mar/21/custodial-death-of-parbhani-protester-magistrate-report-reveals-police-brutality> accessed 17 June 2025.
[15] ‘Deoghar custodial death sparks protests, villagers pelt stone at police station | Ranchi News – Times of India’ (The Times of India, 22 May 2025) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/deoghar-custodial-death-sparks-protests-villagers-pelt-stone-at-police-station/articleshow/121346499.cms> accessed 18 June 2025.
[16] Nupur Thapliyal, ‘Delhi High Court Orders Expeditious Conclusion Of Magisterial Inquiry Into ‘Custodial Death’ Of 32-Yr-Old’ (Latest Legal News, Supreme Court News, High Court News | Livelaw India, 25 April 2024) <HYPERLINK “https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-custodial-death-enquiry-by-magistrate-256128″www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-custodial-death-enquiry-by-magistrate-256128> accessed 18 June 2025.
[17] Aditi Pradhan and Devyani Srivastava, ‘Police Complaints Authorities in India’ (CHRI – Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 20 October 2023) <www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publication/police-complaints-authorities-in-india#:~:text=Seventeen%20years%20ago,%20in%20its,2021%20and%20later%20in%202023.> accessed 19 June 2025.
