CUSTODIAL DEATHS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROMISE OF DIGNITY: AN ANALYSIS UNDER ARTICLES 21 AND 22

ABSTRACT

Custodial death is an unfortunate indication of a failure of the State to uphold the rule of law and human dignity. Incidents of torture and death in custody are on the rise across India, notwithstanding the constitutional guarantees under Articles 21 and 22. This article reviews the political and constitutional framework facilitating custodial death, considers the case law, and thinks about the dissonance between law and enforcement. It uses the cases of Nilabati Behera, D.K. Basu, and Shivakka as entry points; custodial death is considered not only a criminal act but a direct violation of the constitutional promise of dignity. Finally, this article discusses consequences for policy and legal reform needed to re-orient constitutional guarantees into genuine protection for everyone in custody.

INTRODUCTION

The Indian Constitution projects a society based on justice, equality, and human dignity. However, one of the most harrowing facts confronting India’s criminal justice system is the culture of custodial deaths—deaths that occur as a result of being subjected to police interrogation, judicial custody, or while being incarcerated in prison. Such “deaths” illustrate the gulf between constitutional ideals and institutional reality.

The constitutional solution to these “deaths” is found in Articles 21 and 22. Article 21 establishes the right to life and personal liberty, while Article 22 serves as a protection from arbitrary state power by outlining procedural safeguards in the instances of arrest and detention. Articles 21 and 22 are meant to protect you from arbitrary state power, yet we still see custodial deaths.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) reported in its annual report for 2023-24 that there were over 750 custodial deaths last year alone (2 deaths per day). Independent organizations, like the National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT), report that the custodial death rate is even higher. Each one of these custodial deaths represents a constitutional tragedy—a moment in which the state violated the human rights it swore to uphold.

ARTICLES 21 AND 22: CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Article 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Initially viewed in a narrow manner, Article 21 has been expanded through a number of judicial interpretations to include a wide range of rights, which entailed:

• The Right to live with human dignity
• The Right to be free from torture, or from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment
• The Right to health, legal aid and fair procedure
• The Right to a speedy trial and humane conditions of detention

Starting with Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court of India converted Article 21 from one merely providing procedural protection to a right providing substantive due process – that is, the Court established that, any “procedure established by law” must be just, fair and reasonable.

Article 22: Safeguards against Arbitrary Arrest and Detention

Article 22 acts as a procedural corollary to Article 21. It provides that:

1. No person detained shall be held in custody without being informed of the grounds for the detention.
2. Each person detained must be produced before a magistrate within a 24-hour period.
3. The person has a right to consult a lawyer and to be represented by a lawyer.
4. Preventive detention is only permissible under certain limited conditions.

In the context of deaths in custody, these procedural protections are significant. The denial of representation, detention in secrecy or the failure to produce someone arrested before a magistrate goes against the Article 22 right to representation, and often leads to torture or death.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION AND LANDMARK CASES

1. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)

Suman Behera, a young man, was found dead on the railway tracks after being taken into police custody. The State contended that he had escaped custody and was run over by a train. However, the Supreme Court rejected the State’s contention and held that the death in question was the result of custodial violence.

Held: Custodial death is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also ordered ₹1.5 lakh compensation to the mother of the deceased holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not exonerate the State from constitutional liability.

Significance: Initiated the idea of constitutional compensation in public law for violations of fundamental rights.

2. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

The Supreme Court laid down eleven mandatory guidelines for arrest and detention procedures after a series of reports exposed custodial torture. They included provisions for arrest memo, informing relatives, medical examinations, and maintenance of custody registers.

Held: Failure to comply with these safeguards will lead to departmental action and possibly contempt proceedings.

Significance: Institutionalised preventive measures required under Articles 21 and 22, ultimately to prevent torture and custodial deaths.

3. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994)

The Court emphasized that arrest should not be routine, and law enforcement must have reasonable grounds to believe the arrested individual has committed an offense. The Court also mandated that family members of the arrested individual must be notified to police the location of finished criminal matters.

4. Re: Inhumane Conditions in Prisons as Discussed in 1382 (2016)

The Supreme Court issued directives for better conditions in prisons, recognizing that, even after conviction, there is a right to dignity. The Court asserted a right to humane conditions, medical attention, and protection against custodial violence.

5. Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020)

The Court ordered the mandatory installation of CCTV cameras with audio at all police stations and interrogation rooms in India. The purpose of the judgment was to promote transparency and deter torture.

Importance: Strengthened technological safeguards under Article 21 so that dignity and life is protected in custody.

CUSTODIAL DEATHS AND THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY

1. Infringement of Bodily Integrity:

Every incident of custodial death is an infringement on bodily integrity. The fundamental right articulated in Article 21 which remains that life includes the protection of the body from unlawful damage inflicted by agents of the State.

2. Violation of Procedural Due Process:

When an individual is not placed on notice as to the reason for their arrest, not provided with counsel, and not brought before an appropriate magistrate, that right protected under Article 22 has been violated. These violations of procedural due process preclude safeguards against torture that could lead to deaths not “in the procedure established by law.”

3. Positive State Obligation:

The State is responsible not simply to refrain from unlawful killing, but it is required to provide measures guaranteeing safety in custody, to provide medical treatment, and to uphold human dignity. Any failure to provide those measures even where there is a failure to act or a negligent failure amounts to a constitutional violation.

4. Erosion of Dignity:

The constitutional notion of dignity requires every human being be treated as an end in and of themselves. Torture, humiliation or death in custody destroys that notion. As observed by Justice Krishna Iyer, “Human dignity is the core of life in human society; to destroy human dignity is to destroy the very spirit of the Constitution.”

REALITY CHECK: THE GAP BETWEEN LAW AND PRACTICE

Despite progressively positive jurisprudence, the ground realities are still worrying:

• Under-Reporting and Manipulation:

Many of the deaths are registered as commits suicides or accidents, fabricated postmortem reports, and independent inquiries are rare.

• Poor Investigation:

The police investigations are often conducted by their own coworkers, causing a conflict of interest, while A departmental inquiry will rarely lead to a conviction.

• Limited Data:

The NCRB and NHRC data show a variance, and there is a lack of a common national database to foster accountability.

• Low Conviction Rates:

Between 2017-2023, over 1,800 custodial deaths were logged, mediated less than 2%, and led to conviction.

• Lack of Awareness and Legal Aid:

Many detainees do not know their rights under Articles 21 and 22, and legal aid mechanisms are weak, especially in rural areas.

• Cultural Factors:

There is a culture of impunity in certain segments of law enforcement, exacerbated by political pressure, societal apathy, and systemic bias against marginalized communities.

GLOBAL AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

International law, specifically the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), places obligations on States to prevent torture, conduct prompt investigations, and punish offenders. India signed UNCAT in 1997, though still no ratification, leaving a critical legal black hole.

In comparison:

• United Kingdom: All deaths in custody, are investigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
• South Africa: Independent Police Investigative Directorate conducts prompt and mandatory investigations.
• India: Investigations usually remain with police departments – which is questionable in terms of impartiality.

Using best practice from outside jurisdictions would strengthen Article 21 substantive protection while also aligning India with an international framework of human rights.

REFORMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Comprehensive Anti-Torture Legislation

Create dedicated legislation titled “Custodial Violence (Prevention and Accountability) Act”, that would accurately define when torture and custodial deaths can occur, define command responsibility, & effectively shift burden of proof in certain situations and outlines victim compensation availability.

2. Independent Oversight Mechanisms

Create Police Complaints Authorities at the district and state levels that have the ability to independently investigate custodial deaths as well as make recommendations for prosecution.

3. Implementation of DK Basu and CCTV Guidelines

Enforce adherence to arrest and detention guidelines, with holding individuals accountable for arrests and detentions that aren’t conducted in compliance with the guidelines.

4. Transparent Investigation and Autopsy Procedures

Every custodial death must be investigated by a corresponding judicial magistrate with the investigation conducted under section 176(1A) CrPC protocol and every autopsy need to be video graphed conducted with neutral medical personnel.

5. Compensation and Victim support

Standards need to be set for uniform compensation from the state that takes into consideration the victims age, income and dependants. There should be additional psychological support available and legal support to families.

6. Training and Sensitization

Training in the curriculum for police should include human rights education and ethical policing, and recognition of humane treatment as part of sharing and promoting accountability.

7. Judicial Monitoring and Fast Track Courts

Special courts designed for custodial violence cases should be created to ensure justice is done quickly as well as provide deterrent ideology.

8. Data Transparency

All custodial death statistics, status of investigations, and disciplinary action should be published in real-time on government websites and the NHRC website.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2023–2025)

• The NHRC Annual Report 2023-24 recorded 779 deaths in police custody and 1,650 deaths in judicial custody, all of which show a marked increase.
• At the latest instance of State of Chhattisgarh v. Suresh Kumar (2024), a High Court directed that despite the accused dying just three hours after the police remand was granted, compensation of ₹ 5 lakh to be paid to the family establishing the liability under Article 21.
• Several State High Courts, like the Kerala High Court, the Bombay High Court, and Madras High Court, began to direct the filing of reports utilized CCTV in prisons and conduct audits of magisterial inquiries, indicating the expectations by the judiciary of compliance in enforcing the holding in Paramvir Saini.
• Yet, conviction rates continue to be incredibly poor and exhibit the durable gap between rights and remedies.

CONCLUSION

The occurrence of custodial deaths undermines the very legitimacy of constitutional governance. Articles 21 and 22 are not merely ideals. They are binding commitments that even the State cannot violate. Each and every custodial death assaults the ethical base of democracy and the rule of law.

Indian jurisprudence has been clear: the right to life under Article 21 incorporates the right to live—and die—with dignity. The protections offered under Article 22 ensure liberty is not obliterated behind walls. Yet, unless the constitutional assurances are accompanied by administrative commitment, legislative will, and societal awareness, they remain assurances on paper.

Preventing custodial deaths requires something more than paying damages after the fact. It requires the character or culture of an institution to shift from coercion to compassion, from secrecy to transparency, and from impunity to accountability. Affirming human dignity while in the custodial arms of the State is not a gracious act; it is a constitutional obligation.

Until the last prisoner, the poorest detainee, and the unheard defendant are treated with dignity, India has no claim to faithfulness to the spirit of its Constitution.

REFERENCES

1.The Constitution of India – Articles 21 & 22

2.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248

3.Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746

4.D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416

5.Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260

6.Commr. v. Shivakka (2), (2011) 3 SCC 189

7.Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2016) 3 SCC 700

8.Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2020) 13 SCC 118

9.NHRC Annual Report 2023–24

10.National Campaign Against Torture Report 2024