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

Custodial deaths are one of the India’s most serious human rights violations in the criminal  justice system. In the face of constitutional safeguards and international commitments,  custodial deaths continue with alarming regularity, indicating systemic failure in the  mechanism of accountability. This article analyzes the legal framework about custodial  deaths, identifies gaps in implementation, and suggests far-reaching reforms. By analyzing  landmark cases, laws, and institutional responses, this research contends that while India has  established a strong legal framework to combat custodial deaths, enforcement is weak  because of institutional lag, culture of impunity, and loopholes in procedure. This article  recommends compulsory video recording of interrogations, independent watchdog bodies,  and victim-friendly mechanisms of compensation to restore people’s faith in the justice  system. 

1. Introduction

“The death of a person in custody is a matter of grave concern in a civilized society governed  by the rule of law. The State is under an obligation to ensure that no person is subjected to  torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”¹ 

The specter of custodial deaths looms over India’s criminal justice system like  an open wound. Every statistic hides a human tale—a family ruined, hopes dashed, and  justice delayed. If the organs of the state that are supposed to safeguard the people are turned  into instruments of terror, the social compact between the people and the state is irretrievably  broken. 

Custodial deaths are those deaths that occur while individuals are in the custody of law  enforcement officers, e.g., police stations, prisons, and in transit. India records over 1,700  custodial deaths annually, of which police custody alone accounts for approximately 5-10%  of the fatalities, according to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) data.² This  epidemic of state violence must be fought with all due speed by legal scholars, policymakers,  and civil society. 

The custodial death crisis strikes at the heart of constitutional democracy, breaching the very  basic rights under Articles 14, 19, 20, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

When the guardians of the responsibility of upholding the law turn into lawbreakers, the very  principle of the rule of law is undermined. The present article tries to analyze the  complex nexus of legal, institutional, and societal inputs resulting in the crisis and proposes  actionable 

2. Constitutional and Legal Framework

2.1 Constitutional Foundations

In India, the Constitution provides a strong framework that provides for the rights of persons  in custody. Article 21, the bulls-eye of personal liberty, stipulates that “no person shall be  deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The  Appex Court, while interpreting Article 21, said in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India that the  procedure that is mandated by law must be just, fair, and reasonable and not arbitrary. 

Article 22 concerns itself with the rights of arrested persons, binding that:  No person shall be detained without being informed of the grounds for arrest  Every arrested person has the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner 

No person shall be detained for more than twenty-four hours without the authority of a  Magistrate. 

The Directive Principles of State Policy being non-justiciable, they cast a moral obligation on  the State to foster conditions which uphold human dignity and curb torture. 

2.2 Statutory Provisions

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) provides detailed provisions for arrest,  detention, and treatment of accused persons. Section 41A mandates that police officers must  issue a notice of appearance before arrest in cases where the offence carries punishment of  less than seven years. Section 50A requires medical examination of arrested persons to  document pre-existing injuries. 

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, through Section 106, places the burden of proof on the  prosecution to explain deaths occurring in custody. This provision, strengthened by judicial  interpretation, creates a presumption against the custodial authority when unexplained deaths  occur.

2.3 International Obligations

India is a signatory to several international instruments prohibiting torture and custodial  violence: 

 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 

 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or  Punishment 

 Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

These instruments impose binding obligations on India to prevent, investigate, and punish  custodial deaths while providing adequate compensation to victims’ families. 

3. Judicial Response and Landmark Cases

3.1 Supreme Court Interventions

The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in addressing custodial deaths through  progressive judgments that have expanded the scope of constitutional protection. 

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal,⁴ the Court laid down eleven mandatory guidelines for  arrest and detention, including: 

 Preparation of a memo of arrest 

 Right to inform family members 

 Mandatory medical examination 

 Maintenance of custody registers 

 Notification to District Magistrate about arrests 

“Custodial violence is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to  a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and  whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward.”⁵ 

The Court’s anguish in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa⁶ reflects the gravity of custodial  deaths:

“Violation of human rights is a matter of concern not only for the victim and his family but  for the entire society. The State machinery meant to protect the citizen should not become a  tool of oppression and persecution.” 

3.2 Compensatory Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court has developed a comprehensive framework for 

compensation in custodial death cases. In Nilabati Behera, the Court awarded ₹1.5  lakh compensation while establishing the principle that compensation and criminal  prosecution are independent remedies. 

The Court enhanced compensation amounts in subsequent cases: 

 Saheli v. Commissioner of Police⁷: ₹2 lakh 

 Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das⁸: ₹5 lakh 

 Recent cases: ₹10-15 lakh 

3.3 Institutional Reforms

Judicial intervention has led to the creation of institutional safeguards:   Mandatory post-mortem by a panel of doctors 

 Judicial inquiry in cases of custodial deaths 

 Compensation schemes for victims’ families 

 Disciplinary action against errant officers 

4. The Role of the National Human Rights Commission

The NHRC was set up in 1993 and has become an important guardian in cases of custodial  deaths. The Commission’s mandate includes: 

 Suo moto investigations of custodial deaths 

 Monitoring compliance with directions from the Supreme Court 

 Recommending compensation and initiating disciplinary actions 

 Conducting surprise inspections of detention facilities 

“The NHRC has been the sentinel of human rights, but its bark is often louder than its bite.  Without enforcement powers, it remains a moral force rather than a legal authority.”⁹

4.1 NHRC Guidelines and Procedures

The Commission has issued comprehensive guidelines requiring: 

 Immediate reporting of custodial deaths within 24 hours 

 Preservation of evidence and scene of crime 

 Independent investigation by CBI or state CID 

 Magisterial inquiry within specified timeframes 

 Compensation ranging from ₹2-5 lakh 

4.2 Challenges in Implementation

Despite NHRC’s efforts, implementation remains patchy: 

 Delayed reporting by police authorities 

 Inadequate investigation quality 

 Non-compliance with compensation orders 

 Lack of prosecutorial will in pursuing cases 

5. Systemic Failures and Accountability Gaps

5.1 Culture of Impunity

The most damning aspect of custodial deaths is the culture of impunity that shields  perpetrators. Statistical analysis reveals that conviction rates in custodial death cases  hover around 4-5%, creating a vicious cycle where torture is normalized and  accountability becomes an exception rather than the rule. 

“When those who are supposed to protect become predators, and those who should  serve justice become its gravest violators, society loses its moral compass.”¹⁰ 

5.2 Investigative Inadequacies

The quality of investigation in custodial death cases is often compromised by:   Conflict of Interest: Police investigating their own colleagues

 Evidence Tampering: Manipulation of post-mortem reports and witness  statements 

 Procedural Violations: Non-compliance with mandatory guidelines   Time Delays: Crucial evidence destroyed or compromised 

5.3 Prosecutorial Challenges

The successful prosecution of custodial death cases faces multiple hurdles:   Weak evidence due to poor investigation 

 Hostile witnesses and police protection 

 Lengthy trial processes 

 Inadequate legal representation for victims’ families 

6. Comparative Analysis: International Best Practices

6.1 United Kingdom

The UK’s Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) provides a model for  the independent investigation of custodial deaths. Key features include: 

 Mandatory independent investigation 

 Civilian oversight with statutory powers 

 Public hearings and transparency 

 Robust compensation mechanisms 

6.2 United States

The US employs federal oversight through the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights  Division to investigate custodial deaths. The system includes: 

 Federal prosecution under Section 1983 of Civil Rights Act 

 Consent decrees for systemic reforms 

 Independent monitors for police departments 

 Victim compensation through civil litigation

6.3 South Africa

Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) of South Africa offers lessons in  transitional justice approaches: 

 Constitutional mandate for independence 

 Prosecutorial powers for serious crimes 

 Community engagement and transparency 

 Restorative justice elements 

7. Proposed Reforms and Recommendations

7.1 Legislative Reforms

7.1.1 Prevention of Torture Act India urgently needs a comprehensive  Prevention of Torture Act that: 

 Defines torture in accordance with international standards 

 Provides mandatory sentences for torture 

 Establishes independent investigation mechanisms 

 Creates victim compensation funds 

7.1.2 Police Reforms Fundamental police reforms must include: 

 Separation of investigation and law enforcement functions 

 Fixed tenure for police officers 

 Merit-based promotions and transfers 

 Community policing initiatives 

7.2 Institutional Mechanisms

7.2.1 Independent Investigation Agency Establishment of an independent  agency with: 

 Constitutional status and autonomy

 Prosecutorial powers in custodial death cases 

 Civilian oversight and accountability 

 Adequate funding and resources 

7.2.2 Mandatory Technology Integration

 Video Recording: Mandatory audio-visual recording of all interrogations   Digital Custody Registers: Real-time monitoring of detention   Biometric Systems: Preventing identity fraud and false encounters   Medical Monitoring: Continuous health monitoring of detainees  7.3 Victim-Centric Approaches

7.3.1 Enhanced Compensation

 Uniform compensation standards across states 

 Interim relief for families pending investigation 

 Rehabilitation support including education and employment   Psychological counseling and trauma support 

7.3.2 Legal Aid and Support

 Dedicated legal aid for custodial death cases 

 Pro bono legal panels with specialized expertise 

 Witness protection programs 

 Family liaison officers for ongoing support 

7.4 Training and Capacity Building

7.4.1 Human Rights Training

 Mandatory human rights training for all police personnel   Regular refresher courses and assessments 

 Integration of human rights in police academy curriculum

 Collaboration with human rights organizations 

7.4.2 Accountability Mechanisms

 Performance evaluation based on human rights compliance 

 Regular audits of detention facilities 

 Community feedback mechanisms 

 Whistleblower protection for reporting violations 

8. The Path Forward: Building a Humane Justice System

8.1 Political Will and Leadership

Meaningful reform necessarily requires enduring political commitment at all levels of  government. Political leaders need to realize that custodial deaths are not simply law and  order issues but are fundamental challenges to a democratic governance set-up. 

“A society that tolerates torture in its police stations and jails is a society that has lost its  soul. The measure of a civilization is how it treats those who are powerless and  voiceless.”¹¹ 

8.2 Civil Society Engagement

Civil society organizations play a crucial role in: 

 Monitoring compliance with human rights standards 

 Providing legal aid and support to victims’ families 

 Advocating for policy reforms 

 Raising public awareness about custodial violence 

8.3 Media and Public Awareness

The media must move beyond sensationalized reporting to: 

 Investigate systemic causes of custodial deaths 

 Follow up on compensation and accountability measures 

 Highlight best practices and positive reforms

 Educate the public about their rights 

9. Conclusion

Custodial deaths have historically constituted one of the deepest crises for the Indian police  system. Despite adequate prevention provided for under legal lore, the gulf between the book  law and its actual application is too deep. It doesn’t bear thinking about the human factor in  it- broken families, traumatized communities, and erosion of public faith in institutions. In the  Indian context, this fact has great consequences. 

The multi-pronged strategy inter alia working legislations, restructuring institutions, and  bringing on cultural change offers the way forward. Transparency and accountability must be  exercised through technology, while victim-centered approaches stand to ensure that justice  does not remain a mere legal expression but rather becomes the lived reality for those  affected. 

“Justice delayed is justice denied, but justice perverted is the assassination of the human  spirit. Each custodial death reminds us that the road toward a just society is still  incomplete.¹²” 

The time for slow change has already passed. India today needs transformative changes,  placing human dignity at the center of the Criminal Justice System. Only when such changes  are implemented will the country have fulfilled the constitutional promise of justice, liberty,  equality, and fraternity for all its citizens. 

The voices of those who died in custody must not be silenced. Their sacrifice demands that  we build a system where the custodians of law become its most faithful guardians, where  detention centers become spaces of dignity rather than torture chambers, and where the  phrase “custodial death” becomes a relic of India’s past rather than a continuing stain on its  present. 

REFERENCES 

Cases:

1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
3. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
4. Saheli v. Commissioner of Police (1990) 1 SCC 422
5. Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000) 2 SCC 465

Statutes:

1. Constitution of India, 1950
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

International Instruments:

1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
2. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984
3. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Secondary Sources:

1. National Human Rights Commission, Annual Report 2022-23 (NHRC 2023) 2. Upendra Baxi, The Future of Human Rights (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2008)
2. Maja Daruwala, Custodial Justice in India (Commonwealth Human Rights Institute 2019)
3. K.S. Subramanian, Police Reforms in India (Sage Publications, 2020)
4. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, para 15.
5. National Human Rights Commission, Annual Report 2022-23 (NHRC 2023) 45. 3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.
6. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416.
7. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746, para 18.
8. ibid.
9. Saheli v. Commissioner of Police (1990) 1 SCC 422.
10. Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000) 2 SCC 465.
11. Maja Daruwala, Custodial Justice in India (Commonwealth Human Rights Institute 2019) 67.
12. Author’s observation on systemic failures in accountability.
13. Upendra Baxi, The Future of Human Rights (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2008) 156.
14. Author’s reflection on the path forward for justice reform.