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

Abstract

Custodial deaths in India are a serious violation of human rights, contravening the constitutional guarantee of life under Article 21. CrPC and IPC, and oversight from the NHRC, custodial deaths are still prevalent due to the failure to implement, investigate properly and hold those responsible accountable. This article outlines the legal, institutional and existing framework one finds themselves working within, discusses areas of weakness in the system, including no anti-torture law, conflict of interest in the investigatory process, and weak evidence, etc. It recommends serious reform in the following areas; statutory criminalisation of torture, independent investigatory bodies, procedural safeguards, increased accountability measures for police officers, enhanced forensic evidence collection and testing, and a culture shift within policing. It becomes clear that reform must take place through coordinated legal, administrative and institutional interventions in order to successfully curb custodial deaths, uphold human rights and rebuild trust in sovereign India’s criminal justice system.

Introduction

Custodial deaths represent the most serious violations of human rights in democratic and rule of law societies. Custodial deaths are those that happen while in police custody or in judicial custody or remand, and they stand in direct violation of the Article 21 guarantee of a right to life that is present in the Indian Constitution.^[1] India’s legal approach has been shaped through judicial review of the constitution, criminal law, and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) as well as directions from the Supreme Court.^[2] Even with all this, and decades of judicial interventions and despite this framework, custodial deaths in India are still an epidemic. This article explores the legal structure surrounding custodial deaths, reviews mechanisms for accountability and looks at potential reform efforts to remedy the ongoing crisis.

Defining Custodial Death: Legal Framework

Custodial death is defined as a death which occurs while a person is in the custody or care of law enforcement agencies, either police or prison authorities and is directly or indirectly connected with the happenings during the detention. The Law Commission of India describes custodial violence as crimes accomplished by public officials against a person who has been arrested or detained, which counts as a fundamental violation of constitutional rights.

Official data published through the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), and reported in national news, shows that custodial deaths still occur across India. For example, the NCRB’s compendium of publications describe deaths in police custody and death in judicial custody on an annual basis. Similarly, between 2017-2022, Nationally, 669 custodial deaths were reported with, Gujarat ranked first (80 cases), followed by Maharashtra (76 cases), Uttar Pradesh (41 cases), Tamil Nadu (40 cases) and Bihar (38 cases).

The Constitutional and Jurisprudential Base

A. Article 21 and State Obligation

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, fundamentally requiring the State to protect life.^[3] The Supreme Court of India has interpreted Article 21 broadly to include not just protection from arbitrary deprivation of life, but also procedural safeguards of arrested and detained individuals. In circumstances where an arrestee dies in police custody, Article 21 invokes strict scrutiny by the Courts because the State is the lawful provider of safety to that individual.

B. Landmark Judicial Pronouncements

The Supreme Court has been the principal forum to develop safeguards against custodial abuse.

1. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994)^[4]:To deter unlawful arrest, the Court laid down a series of guidelines for police to follow and reinforced that individuals under arrest have the right to have their arrest recorded, and to assure that they are brought to a magistrate.
2. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)^[5]: This is the seminal custodial-torture judgment. The Court enumerated specific procedural safeguards (commonly cited as the D.K. Basu guidelines) that police must follow at arrest and detention, e.g., identification of arresting officers, preparation of an arrest memo attested by a witness, immediate information to a relative, medical examination within 48 hours, sending copies of arrest memos to magistrates and police control rooms, and availability of a police control room to receive and disseminate information. These guidelines were framed to limit the opportunities for torture and to create documentary traces for later accountability.Critically, the Court held that violation of these guidelines constitutes contempt of court and attracts departmental action against offending officers.
3. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)^[6] and related decisions: The Court warned against mechanical arrests, instructing police to use the CrPC’s arrest provisions (Section 41) with caution. Judges must ensure arrests are not made as routine.
4. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)^[7]: While Prakash Singh was primarily focused on police reform (police excesses, political interferences, tenure and accountability), the judgment is critical to the custodial death discourse given it gives directions to the institutions (Police Complaints Authorities, minimum tenure, investigation and law and order separation) that can influence policing culture around accountability and custodial deaths.

Collectively these decisions establish a constitutional framework: (i) procedural safeguards at arrest/detention (ii) evidentiary protections against coerced confessions and (iii) a set of institutional recommendations for reform.

Statutory and Evidentiary Law

A.    The principal statutory framework addressing custodial matters operates through several interconnected provisions.

1.  Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)^[8] establishes that a police officer cannot detain a person for more than 24 hours without authorization from a magistrate
2. .  Section 176(1)^[9] states that if someone dies in custody, a judicial magistrate must conduct an inquest/inquiry, which means the investigation should proceed without police involvement. This was amended in 2006 to create a new provision: Section 176(1A) – which states there must be a magisterial inquiry when there’s a death in care/custody.
   The recent Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has modified these provisions and replaced them with Section 196, which requires inquiry by the magistrate.

B. Custodial deaths can attract various offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), depending on facts and mens rea:

• 302 IPC^[10] (murder) or 304 IPC^[11] (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which will apply when custodial officers cause death intentionally or recklessly.
• Sections 330-331 IPC^[12] criminalized voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession or information, which would be for torture to extract confessions.
• 342 IPC^[13] (wrongful confinement) etc. where the detention itself is unauthorised.

C. Protection of Human Rights Act & NHRC

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA)^[1] created the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)^[2] and State Human Rights Commissions with mandate to inquire into violations of human rights, including custodial deaths. The NHRC has issued guidelines (e.g., magisterial enquiry protocols in deaths in custody) and frequently monitors, inquires and recommends compensation and departmental action. But the NHRC’s recommendations are largely recommendatory and lack prosecutorial power; criminal prosecutions must proceed through police accountability mechanisms and courts.

Institutional Mechanisms and the Investigation Process

When a custodial death occurs, the ideal legal and investigative sequence is straightforward in theory:
 (a) immediate information to a magistrate
 (b) independent magisterial enquiry
 (c) prompt medico-legal autopsy
 (d) a transparent and independent criminal investigation
 (e) administrative suspension and departmental inquiry into responsible officials
 (f) speedy criminal trial if evidence warrants.
 
In practice, the investigation chain often breaks: post-mortems may be delayed or are inconclusive; police investigate their own; evidence, CCTV, arrest memos, medical records, may be incomplete or tampered, and magisterial enquiries are perfunctory. These failures explain why criminal accountability and convictions in custodial-death cases are rare.

Core Implementation Gaps

1. Non-implementation of Judicial Directives: The supreme court guidelines in D.K. Basu and directions given by Prakash Singh are lucid but implemented inconsistently at the State level of police behavior. Many police stations do not even have an arrest register or record interrogations with CCTV, and the various protections of name tagging and arrest memos are not adhered to uniformly.
2. Investigation by Interested Parties:police often have a vested interest when it comes to an investigation, delayed formation of independent inquiry teams, and no independent, statutory, investigatory body of custodial deaths creates further distrust among the public.
3. Lack of a Dedicated Anti-Torture Statute: there is no statutory regime in India that implements a national anti-torture law that complies with the definitions of torture in UNCAT,^[16] neither does it implement tiered investigatory or remedial legal processes. India signed UNCAT in 1997 but the statute has not been ratified. The net result of the absence of an anti-torture violation, creates a lack of clarity and focused prosecutions, as well as a lack of statutory definition.
4. Evidentiary and Forensic Gaps:Delays or poor-quality post-mortems, lack of forensic capacity, poor video-recording of custody and interrogation process all hinder proof of custodial abuse.
5. Weak Remedies and Slow Trials: Even where NHRC recommends relief or prosecution, achieving enforcement of recommendations and fast and effective trials is considerably lacking.

Reform Agenda: Law, Institutions and Procedure

In order to decrease custodial deaths and enhance accountability, reform should take place across three multidisciplinary tracks.

A. Legislative Reforms^[17]

1. Enact a Comprehensive Anti-Torture Law:In line with the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)^[18] articulate a definition of torture; create torture as a separate distinct criminal offence with relevant mens rea and modes of liability (including commander liability); create investigatory mechanisms and remedy for victims. Ratifying the UNCAT should happen after legislative reform. The lack of modern, clear anti-torture statute leads to prosecutorial fragmentation and weak deterrence.
2. Statutory Mandates for Recording and Medical Examination:Convert D.K. Basu procedural safeguards into statutory obligations, compel video-recording for all interrogations and for the initial custody stage; compel a medical examination within 24 hours from an independent medical officer; and require to transmit an arrest memo electronically to a magistrate and police control room (with time stamps).
3. Evidence Law Adjustments: Enhance rules about admissibility of evidence that can prevent torture (for example, make video tape presumed admissible, and create a statutory presumption that unexplained custodial death was the action of the State unless proven otherwise).

B. Institutional Reforms

1. Independent Investigatory Mechanism: Establish an independent, statutory investigatory body (or strengthen existing independent investigatory bodies at the state level) that has the power to investigate custodial deaths and custody torture. This body needs the surrounding power to hold an investigation, seize evidence, recommend charges, and protect witnesses.
2. Police Accountability Bodies with Teeth:Improved Police Complaints Authorities (as suggested in Prakash Singh) with a strengthened, independent function, that make their decisions mandatory for actionable steps by the department or prosecutors as opposed to just advisory notes.^[19]
3. Forensic Capacity and Medical Neutrality:Invest in independent forensic laboratories, improve medico-legal training and ensure post mortems for custodial deaths are ordered to be completed by the experts outside the influence of local police. Allow families independent access to forensic reports, and second autopsies when there are appropriate doubts.

C. Procedural Or Administrative Reforms

1. CCTV and Digital Records: Make CCTV in custody suites, lock-ups and interrogation rooms mandatory and clear rules for secure storage; timestamps and tamper-proofing are essential.^[20]
2. Compensation and Rehabilitation: Place NHRC recommendations on an enforceable footing: statutory compensation for custodial deaths, streamlined mechanisms for fast disbursal and rehabilitation for victims’ families.
3. Training and Culture Change: Police training to emphasise human rights, procedural fairness, and modern investigative methods. Performance incentives should move away from conviction metrics to community policing outcomes and investigative quality.
4. Legal Aid and Access to Counsel: Ensure immediate access to counsel at the time of arrest and during interrogation, the D.K. Basu principles allow meeting counsel during interrogation; this should be made a statutory right to be enforced at station level. Arnesh Kumar and Joginder Kumar emphasize restraint in arrests; better access to counsel reduces misuse.

Conclusion

Custodial deaths in India remain a stark reminder of the State’s failure to fully uphold the constitutional guarantee of life under Article 21. Despite a robust legal framework, comprising Supreme Court guidelines (D.K. Basu, Joginder Kumar, Prakash Singh, Arnesh Kumar), statutory provisions under the CrPC and IPC, and oversight mechanisms like the NHRC, these fatalities continue to occur, exposing gaps in implementation, investigation, and accountability.

The systemic weaknesses identified, inconsistent application of judicial directives, police investigating their own, absence of a dedicated anti-torture law, evidentiary and forensic deficiencies, and delayed remedial action, underscore the urgent need for comprehensive reforms. Addressing custodial deaths requires a multi-pronged approach: statutory recognition and criminalization of torture aligned with international standards, legislative mandates for procedural safeguards, establishment of independent investigatory bodies, strengthening police accountability mechanisms, and ensuring victims’ families receive timely compensation and justice.

Moreover, procedural and administrative reforms, including mandatory CCTV recording, independent medical examinations, access to legal counsel, and a shift in police culture toward human-rights compliance, are essential to prevent abuse and restore public confidence.

In sum, custodial deaths are not merely incidents of individual wrongdoing; they reflect structural and institutional challenges that require coordinated legal, administrative, and cultural interventions. Only through consistent enforcement of safeguards, institutional accountability, and legislative modernization can India reduce custodial fatalities, uphold the sanctity of life, and reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law and human rights.

^[1] Constitution of India 1950, art 21, “Protection of life and personal liberty”, available at <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[2] Open Government Data Platform India, State/UT-wise Custodial Deaths received by NHRC (2016-17 to 2020), data.gov.in, <https://www.data.gov.in/resource/stateut-wise-custodial-deaths-received-national-human-rights-commission-nhrc-2016-17-2020> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[3] Constitution of India 1950, art 21, ‘Protection of life and personal liberty’, available at <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/ >Accessed 20 November,2025

^[4] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 75, available at< https://indiankanoon.org/doc/768175/> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[5] Kathakali Banerjee, ‘DK Basu vs State of West Bengal (1997): Case Analysis’, iPleaders (blog), <https://blog.ipleaders.in/dk-basu-vs-state-of-west-bengal-1997-case-analysis/> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[6] Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (supreme court, 2 July 2014), Criminal Appeal No 1277/2014, available at <https://judicialacademy.nic.in/sites/default/files/1.%20Arnesh%20Kumar%20v.%20State%20of%20Bihar.pdf> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[7] Prakash Singh & Ors v Union of India & Ors (Supreme Court, 13 March 2019) Writ Petition (Civil) No 310/1996, available at <https://narcoticsindia.nic.in/Judgments/Prakash%20Singh%20&%20Ors.%20%20v.%20Union%20of%20India%20&Ors.%202019.pdf> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[8] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC), s 57, available at <https://devgan.in/crpc/section/57/> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[9] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 176, available at <https://restthecase.com/knowledge-bank/crpc/section-176#:~:text=A%20crucial%20clause%20under%20Chapter,unusual%20or%20detention-related%20situations >Accessed 20 November,2025

^[10] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 302, available at <https://devgan.in/ipc/section/302/> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[11] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 304, available at <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/409589/> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[12] custodial Crimes: Sections 330 & 331, AdvocateKhoj, <https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/custodialcrimes/20.php?Title=Custodial%20Crimes&STitle=Sections%20330%20and%20331> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[13] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 342, search results on IndianKanoon, available at <https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=section%20342> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[14] The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 (India), Act No 10 of 1994, available at <https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13233/1/the_protection_of_human_rights_act_1993.pdf> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[15] National Human Rights Commission (India), available at <https://nhrc.nic.in/> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[16] Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 85, available at <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[17] P [Author Name], ‘Legislative Reforms in India and Custodial Violence’ (2025) 108 Criminal Law Journal 4(2) 27–436, available at <https://www.criminallawjournal.org/article/108/4-2-27-436.pdf> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[18] Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 85, available at <https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/catcidtp/catcidtp.html> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[19] Custodial Torture and Need for Police Reforms, DrishtiIAS, <https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/custodial-torture-and-need-for-police-reforms> Accessed 20 November,2025

^[20] Akanksha Verma, ‘Custodial Deaths in India: Legal Framework, Accountability and Reforms’ (2025) 5(4) Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law 466, ISSN 2583-0538, available at <https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/CUSTODIAL-DEATHS-IN-INDIA-LEGAL-FRAMEWORK-ACCOUNTABILITY-AND-REFORMS.pdf> Accessed 20 November,2025