Published on: 23rd January 2026
Authored by: Brijesh Soni
Jawaharlal Nehru Smriti Government Post Graduate College, Shujalpur (M.P)
Abstract
In India, for the very need, basic rights are provided to every citizen. Custodial Deaths & such incidents are a violation of these fundamental rights of persons in custody. This was the result of the inability of police authorities to protect the fundamental rights of a person in prison. The new concern now is abuse of power by the police authorities.
Introduction
Custodial deaths – one of the most heinous stains on India’s criminal justice system! It is not only the loss of a life, but also the erosion of public trust in the institutions that protect citizens. The tragic nature of custodial violence is that it is silent – the injured person is usually left speechless, rights are denied or compensation is delayed, and the truth is buried under mountains of procedural immunity. If a person is deprived of liberty, the state becomes the guardian and arbiter of life. Therefore, any action taken by the police in response to a custodial death is not only a police failure, but also a national failure of our constitutional promise of human dignity and equality.
Cases involving deaths in custody cannot and should not be ignored. This is because when law enforcement agencies themselves violate the law, it becomes an ominous case of abuse of power and discrimination against caste and religious minorities under the guise of impunity – all supported by a silent state. Police officers have no right to play with people’s lives and abuse their power, yet numerous cases of this nature arise. Police officers are generally considered guardians of the law, but at times they act contrary to this and thus fail to ensure the fundamental right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.[1]
Prison torture is a demonstration of the principle of justice for you, a live person. In and of itself, it does not eliminate fundamental rights. With uncertain application, these rights remain.
The police are our lifeline, the guardians of our freedom and liberty. “The police have a job to do and they can’t be responding to inquiries from people. They must recognize that the law alone is sovereign and all are beneath it, no one above. They would be jointly held accountable for abuse of human rights.
Providing state-wise data on custodial deaths, Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai said that Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest number of cases in both years, followed by West Bengal.
A total of 952 cases were registered in Uttar Pradesh in the last two years (451 in 2020 and 501 in 2021), while Bengal recorded 442 cases during this period (185 in 2020 and 257 in 2021).
In a written reply to questions from Indian Union Muslim League MP Abdussamad Samdani, Rai said that with 396 cases, Bihar ranked third in terms of custodial deaths in the two years (159 in 2020 and 237 in 2021).
He further said that overall, 1,940 cases of custodial deaths were registered in 2020 and 2,544 in 2021.
In the south, Tamil Nadu saw a sharp jump in a single year. According to data shared by the minister, the state recorded 63 cases in 2020, while the following year the number rose to 109.
The Northeast has seen fewer custodial deaths reported in the past two years. Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Tripura reported fewer than 10 cases during this period. In the South, Goa and Karnataka reported no more than 10 cases in these two years.
The Union Territories of Lakshadweep, Ladakh, Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli reported zero cases.
Regarding deaths in police encounters, the Minister said a total of 82 cases were reported in 2020 and 151 in 2021.
The Minister said Chhattisgarh topped the list with 54 cases in the past two years.
He said Jammu and Kashmir ranked second (five in 2020 and 50 in 2021), followed by Uttar Pradesh (16 in 2020 and 11 in 2021).
He further said, “However, the central government issues advisories from time to time and has also enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHR), 1993, which provides for the establishment of the National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commissions to investigate alleged human rights violations by public servants.”[2]
Constitutional and legal safeguards
Constitutional Provisions –
- Article 14: Article 14 ensures equality before the law and affirms that no person, including law enforcement agencies or officials, is above the law.
- Article 21: Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
- Article 20(1): Article 20(1) states that no person can be convicted of an act that was not a crime under the law at the time of the crime, thus prohibiting excessive or retroactive punishment.
- Article 20(3): Article 20(3) protects a person from being compelled to self-incriminate, and protects the accused from forced or coerced confessions through torture or duress.
Legal Provisions-
- Section 120 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023): It punishes those who intentionally cause hurt or grievous hurt to obtain a confession or information through violence or coercion.
- Section 35 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS, 2023): It mandates that there must be valid reasons and documented procedures for arrest and detention.
- Section 22 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (2023): It invalidates a confession made under inducement, threat, coercion, or promise.
International Provisions-
- The United Nations Charter, 1945: Mandates that prisoners be treated with dignity, and affirms that their fundamental rights and freedoms under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR—India is a signatory) are protected.
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): Protects individuals from torture, cruel treatment, and enforced disappearance, and ensures the right to dignity and security.[3]
Police Act, 1861-
- Section 29 – Every police officer who is found guilty of breach of his duty or of wilfully violating any rule, regulation or lawful order made by a competent authority, or of using any person in his custody with unreasonable personal violence, shall, on conviction before a Magistrate, be punished with a fine not exceeding three months’ pay, or with imprisonment with or without rigorous labor for a term not exceeding three months, or with both.[4]
Reasons for the Rising Number of Custodial Deaths in India
- Legal Void: India has signed the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT), 1997, but has not ratified it, meaning it is not legally bound to implement its provisions.
- Procedural Lapses and Delays: The Supreme Court of India laid down important guidelines to prevent custodial abuse in K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997).
However, courts often rely on magisterial inquiries, which are fraught with procedural flaws and delays.
- Institutional Incentives: Despite being inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, confessions obtained through violence are still considered evidence.
- Weak Accountability: Investigations into deaths in custody are usually conducted by the same relevant department. Even where judicial investigations are initiated, they are often slow, vague, and inconclusive.
- Political interference: Policing in India is often influenced by political pressures, undermining impartial action and protecting erring officers.[5]
Relevant case law
NILABATI BEHERA v. STATE OF ORISSA, –
The Supreme Court concluded that Suman Lal Behera’s death was a custodial death caused by the state’s failure to protect his life and personal liberty. The Court awarded substantial monetary compensation to Nilabati Behera as relief. This decision also highlighted the recognition of torture and death in custody as a serious violation of human rights. It also stated that the state has a duty to protect those in custody, and failure to do so creates liability. The Court directed the State of Orissa to pay compensation of ₹150,000 to the appellant and ₹10,000 to the Legal Aid Committee of the Supreme Court. The compensation awarded in this case was considered a constitutional remedy, underscoring the importance of protecting fundamental rights. This case set an important precedent for awarding compensation in cases of custodial deaths and human rights violations. It reinforced the principle of strict liability for custodial deaths and highlighted the state’s responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of individuals in custody. This decision was a significant step in addressing the issue of custodial violence in India.[6]
D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal-
Thus the present judgment has been a medium in preventing such kind of deaths and providing a safeguard to the rights of arrestee or a person who has been detained; as the motive is towards rehabilitation of the accused and providing a humanly treatment to them while being in the custody, because the discretion of providing the right kind and quantum of punishment must reside in the hands of the judiciary and not the investigating authority outside the scope of its authority and beyond the procedure that has been established by the law.[7]
Current statistics on custodial harm and abuse in India
Extent and trends: India reported at least 11,650 custodial deaths (including those in police and judicial custody) between 2016 to 2022, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had said.
Moreover, in 2024, NHRC received information about 2,739 custodial deaths and specifically 155 of them were from police custody.
India was termed as a country that had “high risk” potential for systemic torture and custodial excesses in the Global Torture Index 2025.
Pattern by State: According to data from NHRC and Lok Sabha (2023), during 2018-19 & until 2022-23, Uttar Pradesh saw the highest number of custodial deaths after Maharashtra, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu.[8]
Reforms are needed to ensure safe and accountable detention practices in India
Legal Measures and Policy Reforms: Parliament ought to pass a separate anti-torture law criminalizing custodial violence with strict timelines for investigations, as proposed by the Law Commission in its 273rd Report.
The legislation must require prompt and uniform videotaping or audiotaping of all custodial interrogations as well as independent review, and courts admit it into evidence.
It is also absolutely essential to the passage of an Indian statute for India to ratify UN’s Convention against Torture (UNCAT) which will commit it to global standards and oversight forms its policing principles.
Prioritizing Police Wellness and Training: There needs to be a strategic reallocation of police budgets, with at least 5% directed toward officer wellness, establishing mental health units, regular counseling, and sustained human rights training.
There is a need to institutionalize mental wellness within law enforcement, not as a luxury, but as a necessity.
Police training curricula must mandatorily include modules on ethics, community policing, trauma-informed care, and international best practices, such as the PEACE (Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure, and Evaluation) Model used in advanced democracies.
Impartiality/Pressure: In order to decrease the undue interference or pressure on the police, SC recommended for setting up State Security Commission in the judgment of Prakash Singh v. Union of India to oversee the functioning of state police force.
Custodial Impact Audit in Police Performance Evaluation: Add a Custodial Audit Score (including THE number of complaints, medical reporting compliance and review of CCTVAS footage) to the annual performance evaluation for station house officers and investigative units.[9]
Conclusion
In India, custodial death is more than a legal aberration; it’s a human tragedy that shows the weakness of our justice system and its litany of victims. Every death is a bitter testament to this: the State that ought to protect can also victimize, when accountability and empathy are absent. Every number is someone’s loss and end of a story.
Though constitutional protections, historical judicial norms and greater public sensitization should ideally prevent such deaths, the cases of custodial death still happen with alarming regularity. This continued failure is not only due to procedural shortcomings; it also represents a deeper institutional problem, a culture of impunity that cannot be entirely eradicated — an environment of policing which, all too frequently, prioritizes immediate output over long-term respect for human life. The lack of a law against torture, at least in its impunity-inducing specifics, and the continued stalling on implementation of existing provisions makes the divide between principle and practice even wider.
It demands empathetic policing, untrammeled investigations, improved training, technological checks and balances and a framework that understands dignity to be non-negotiable. More than that, it demands a change in perception: to cease regarding an accused as a suspect and start regarding the person before you as someone deserving of rights.
Ending custodial deaths is not just a reformative necessity but a moral commitment. When the State ensures safety even within the walls of a lock-up, it reinforces the foundations of democracy and the people’s faith in justice.
[1] Custodial Deaths and Judicial Response. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2025, from https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Custodial-Deaths-and-Judicial-Response
[2] 4,484 custodial deaths in past two years, UP tops chart: Centre | India News. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2025, from https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/4484-custodial-deaths-in-past-two-years-up-tops-chart-centre-101658862858478.html
[3] Custodial Torture in India. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2025, from https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/custodial-torture-in-india
[4] CUSTODIAL DEATH IN INDIA: LEGAL FRAMEWORK, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND REFORMS – The Legal Quorum. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2025, from https://thelegalquorum.com/custodial-death-in-india-legal-framework-accountability-and-reforms/
[5] Custodial Deaths in India: Context, Recommendations & More. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2025, from https://www.nextias.com/ca/current-affairs/03-07-2025/custodial-deaths-in-india
[6] NILABATI BEHERA v. STATE OF ORISSA, AIR 1993 SC 1960 from ‘Custodial Death in India – Legal Implications & Insights | Dhyeya Law’ <https://www.dhyeyalaw.in/custodial-death-in-india> accessed 19 November 2025
[7] Shri D.K.Basu, Ashok K.Johri vs. State of W.B., State of U.P December 18th, 1996 from A Judgment on Torture & Deaths Caused By Police in the Custody & Guidelines to be Followed By the Police While Arresting & Detaining. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2025, from https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/a-judgment-on-torture-deaths-caused-by-police-in-the-custody-guidelines-to-be-followed-by-the-police-while-arresting-detaining
[8] (31 Jul, 2025). (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2025, from https://www.drishtiias.com/current-affairs-news-analysis-editorials/news-editorials/2025-07-31
[9] https://www.drishtiias.com/current-affairs-news-analysis-editorials/news-editorials/2025-07-31
