Custodial Deaths in India: Legal Framework, Accountability, and Reforms

Introduction

Custodial deaths remain a troubling aspect of the criminal justice landscape in India, posing profound questions about human rights, state accountability, and the effectiveness of legal safeguards. A custodial death is defined as the death of a person in police or prison custody, often allegedly resulting from custodial torture, abuse, negligence, or extrajudicial killing. Such incidents undermine public confidence in law enforcement agencies and raise serious concerns about custodial torture and the safeguarding of constitutional rights.

India’s constitutional framework guarantees fundamental rights that protect individuals from custodial abuses, including the right to life and liberty under Article 21, and protections against torture and inhuman treatment under Article 21 and the prohibitions enshrined in various statutes and international commitments. However, despite these safeguards, custodial deaths continue to occur, prompting judicial intervention and prosecutorial efforts to hold perpetrators accountable.

This article endeavors to analyze the legal framework pertinent to custodial deaths, examine landmark case laws that have shaped judicial response, analyze issues related to accountability, and discuss ongoing reforms to curb custodial violence. It aims to provide a nuanced understanding of this grave human rights violation within the Indian context.

Legal Framework Surrounding Custodial Deaths

A. Constitutional Protections

The Constitution of India provides the backbone for safeguarding individuals’ rights in custodial settings. Articles 21 and 22 explicitly deal with personal liberty and protection against arbitrary detention, while Articles 14 and 20 provide safeguards against arbitrary and unlawful actions by the state.

• Article 21: Recognizes the right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has interpreted expansively to include the right to be free from torture, cruelty, and degrading treatment.
• Article 22: Provides safeguards against arbitrary arrest, detention, and imprisonment, including the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and to consult a legal practitioner.
• Article 14: Ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the law, holding felons and police accountable.

B. Statutory Laws and Protective Regulations

• The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: It includes several provisions that address custodial deaths. It establishes the strict legal actions for law enforcement officials who commit negligence when an individual is in custody.
• Legal Provisions in IPC Regarding Custodial Deaths

(i) Section 302: This section deals with murder. A police officer can be charged with murder if they are found responsible for the death of an accused during their custody, and they will face severe punishments under this section.

(ii) Section 304: This section pertains to ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. If a person dies in custody due to wrongful acts but not with the intent to kill, the responsible officer can be punished under this provision.

(iii) Section 330 & 331: These sections penalize voluntary causing hurt to extort confessions. Officers who inflict injuries (either hurt or grievous hurt) to extract confessions can face substantial prison terms.

(iv) Section 304A: This addresses the punishment for causing death by negligence, which applies if a death occurs due to an officer’s negligence, rather than deliberate action.

 (v) Section 306: This section states that if a police officer abets the suicide of a person in custody, they can be held liable for punishment.

• The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973: Provides procedural safeguards during arrest and detention, including mandatory recording of statements and judicial oversight.
• The Prevention of Torture Act, 2019: Enacted to prevent torture and inhumane treatment by law enforcement agencies, it criminalizes acts of torture and prescribes penalties, creating a specific legal framework for addressing custodial torture.
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Includes provisions related to confessions and evidence obtained under duress or torture, often leading to issues concerning admissibility.
• Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993: Establishes the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which investigates allegations of custodial deaths, recommends actions, and monitors compliance.

C. International Law and Commitments

India is a signatory to various international treaties and protocols, including the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which obligate it to prevent torture and custodial violence, ensuring accountability for violations.

D. Judicial Pronouncements and Principles

The judiciary in India has played a pivotal role in enforcing custodial rights, emphasizing the state’s obligation to prevent custodial deaths. Several landmark judgments have laid down clear standards, emphasizing that custodial death amounts to a violation of the right to life and requires stringent prosecution of officers involved.

Case Law Summaries

1. Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh(1972)

Facts: The Supreme Court examined the case of a custodial death and emphasized the State’s obligation to investigate custodial deaths impartially.

Holding: The Court held that custodial death not only violates the individual’s fundamental rights but also warrants a thorough investigation. It underscored the importance of impartial inquiry and accountability, reinforcing that custodial violence questions the rule of law.

Impact: This case cemented the judicial expectation of transparency and accountability in custodial deaths, making it clear that the burden lies on the State to explain and justify custodial practices.

2. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal(1997)

Facts: This landmark judgment dealt with custodial violence and set out preventive measures to avoid custodial torture.

Holding: The Supreme Court laid down detailed directions, including the requirement of recording all actions of police officers during arrest, providing identity particulars, and informing relatives of the arrest. The Court emphasized that custodial death is a violation of Article 21 and ordered compliance with these guidelines.

Impact: The Basu judgment marked a turning point in the legal approach to custodial violence, elevating preventive measures and laying down enforceable guidelines that police authorities must follow.

3. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.(2007)

Facts: The petitioner challenged the custodial death and demanded custodial accountability.

Holding: The Supreme Court reiterated that custodial deaths amount to enforced disappearances and demanded strict action against officers responsible. It stressed the importance of speedy investigations and disciplinary action.

Impact: Strengthened accountability and judicial oversight, emphasizing that custodial death is a serious violation comparable to extrajudicial killing.

4. Nirmal Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana(2019)

Facts: The case involved allegations of custodial torture resulting in death.

Holding: The Court directed the NHRC to carry out investigations swiftly and recommended systemic reforms, including training and monitoring police behavior to prevent custodial deaths.

Impact: Reinforced the role of oversight bodies like the NHRC and emphasized systemic reforms for preventing custodial deaths.

Accountability and Challenges

Despite legislative safeguards and judicial pronouncements, accountability in custodial deaths remains elusive due to various factors:

• Lack of Effective Investigation: Many custodial deaths are either mishandled or inadequately investigated owing to bias, lack of resources, or collusion.
• Impunity for Police Officers: Many cases suffer from delayed justice, inability to identify responsible officers, or lack of political will to prosecute.
• Inadequate Legal Penalties: While laws prescribe penalties, enforcement remains weak, and convictions are rare.
• Use of Torture and Force: Excessive use of force and torture are often normalized within police culture, perpetuating custodial violence.
• Obstruction by Authorities: Pressure on victims’ families and suppression of evidence hinder justice.

The institutional framework, including the NHRC and courts, sometimes struggles to uphold accountability due to these systemic flaws.

Reforms and Recommendations

Efforts to curb custodial deaths have led to various reforms:

• Legal Reforms: Enactment of the Prevention of Torture Act, 2019, provides clearer criminal penalties. Amendments to the CrPC emphasize timely investigations.
• Institutional Reforms: Creation of specialized units for investigating custodial deaths and strengthening the NHRC’s powers.
• Training and Sensitization: Police training on human rights, alternative methods of investigation, and de-escalation techniques.
• Monitoring and Transparency: Use of body cameras, video recordings of interrogations, and periodic audits.
• Community Involvement: Civil society monitoring and victim-centric approaches to ensure accountability.

Additionally, judicial activism has played a role in emphasizing that custodial deaths are grave violations requiring uncompromising action.

Conclusion

Custodial deaths in India constitute a severe challenge to the nation’s commitment to human rights and rule of law. Despite constitutional protections, legislative measures, and judicial pronouncements, many custodial deaths go unpunished due to systemic deficiencies, lack of accountability, and cultural issues within law enforcement agencies. The judiciary, along with legislative and institutional reforms, has laid down stringent guidelines and introduced protective legislation, yet implementation remains inconsistent.

To achieve real change, India must strengthen investigative agencies, promote transparency, uphold victims’ rights, and foster a police culture that rejects violence and torture. Continued judicial vigilance and civil society engagement are vital to transforming custodial practices and ensuring that human dignity and constitutional rights are fully respected.

References

• Indian Constitution
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
• Prevention of Torture Act, 2019
• Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
• Supreme Court of India Judgments:
  1. Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh
  2. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal
  3. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.
  4. Nirmal Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana
• Reports by NHRC and other human rights agencies