Published on: 06th December 2025
Authored by: Piyush Tiwari
University of Mumbai
ABSTRACT
Custodial violence continues to present a dangerous threat to human dignity and the rule of law in India. Incidents of serious trauma, or in extreme cases even death in custody resulting from the inhumane treatment given to the accused still keep on surfacing, pointing to holes in the legal framework and constitutional safeguards. The notion and scope of such cases are examined within this article, alongside current legal protections and judicial actions taken against such abuse of power.
INTRODUCTION
Custodial violence remains to be a widespread global concern, often resulting from the abuse of authority by law enforcement personnel against individuals under their control. Custodial death refers to the death of a person who is in the custody of law enforcement agencies, such as the police, judicial custody (prison), or other state authorities. It is widely seen as a serious violation of human rights and the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This act is done by police for investigation purposes or in order to make an offender confess the crime.1 In a democratic country like India, it’s unfortunate that
enforcers of the law are the one who violates the natural law, it makes us question the credibility of the law.2 There are two types of custody according to Criminal Procedure Code, Police custody refers to the physical detention of the accused by the police, while judicial custody means the accused is kept in jail under the supervision of a magistrate, and the police must obtain approval to investigate them.
CUSTODIAL DEATH
Custodial deaths could broadly be classified as:
Deaths in Police Custody: Arise when an individual is taken into police custody for interrogation, investigation, or temporary detention in a police lock-up. These are usually very controversial because of suspicion of torture or ill-treatment.
Deaths in Judicial Custody/Prison: Take place when an individual is in prison, as a undertrial prisoner (waiting for trial) or as a convicted prisoner serving a term. While some of these occur naturally (disease aging), many more are caused by neglect, denial of medical care, violence from other prisoners or jail officials, or even duress suicides. The Law Commission of India delineates custodial violence as a transgression committed bya public servant against an individual who is arrested or detained, thereby in custody.
ISSUES BEHIND CUSTODIAL DEATH
a. Normalisation of Violence: Use of force is routine, with torture seen as an investigative shortcut. Example, Ajith Kumar (2025) suffered 44 injuries and torture in custody; Vignesh (2022) died with multiple injuries hours after detention.
b. Neglect of Mental Health: Minimal investment in officers’ psychological care leads to burnout and aggression.
c. Poor Training: Outdated training ignores ethics, human rights, and trauma-informed policing.
d. Lack of Accountability: Perpetrators are really prosecuted; suspensions are superficial. Example, after the death of Raja (2024), only minor suspensions occurred; no convictions in many high-profile custodial deaths (e.g., Jayaraj-Bennicks, 2020).
e. Inadequate Oversight: CCTV systems are non-operational or tampered with; real-time monitoring is lacking.
f. Weak Legal Framework: No comprehensive anti-custodial violence law with time-bound investigations. Causes of Custodial Deaths: Systemic Impunity and Institutional Failure Despite formal inquiries and arrests, no police personnel were convicted for custodial deaths. This reflects deep-rooted structural issues, including:
1. Weak Institutional Will: A lack of political and administrative resolve to ensure accountability.
2. Poor Evidence and Delayed Justice: Inadequate witness protection, delayed trials, and substandard evidence collection weaken prosecution.
3. Absence of Independent Probes: Custodial death cases are rarely investigated by impartial bodies, compromising credibility.
4. Institutional Solidarity: A culture of protecting fellow officers often shields the guilty from legal consequences.
5. Human Rights Cases: Many cases of human rights violations ranging from illegal detention to custodial torture and deaths were filed. However, most resulted in little to no accountability, reflecting a dismal conviction rate and a deeper failure of the justice system.
Custodial Torture in India:
Custodial Deaths: Between 2016 and 2022, Tamil Nadu (highest among southern states) reported 490 custodial deaths, while the na onal total stood at 11,656. Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest number with 2,630 deaths. The Global Torture Index 2025 classified India as a “high risk” country for systemic torture and custodial brutality. Furthermore, in 2024, NHRC reported 2,739 custodial deaths, with 155 attributed specifically to police custody. Abuse of Preven ve Deten on Law: In 2022, Tamil Nadu detained 2,129 people under preven ve laws, accounting for half of India’s total. Scheduled Castes (SCs) faced disproportionate custodial violence, making up 38.5% of detainees despite being only 20% of the population in Tamil Nadu.
REFORMS TO UNDERTAKE
1. Budget Reallocation on: Allocate a por on of the policing budget (e.g., 5%) for district-level mental health units and mandatory counselling, similar to Kerala Police’s mental health support programs.
2. Modernise Training: Include ethics, human rights, community policing, and trauma management.
3. Legislative Action: Enact a strong anti-custodial violence law, inspired by the Prevention of Torture Bill (yet to be passed in India), and as recommended by the Law Commission 273rd Report (2017).
4. Strengthen Oversight: Ensure tamper-proof, real-me CCTV monitoring, as mandated by Supreme Court Paramvir Singh Saini case (2020).
5. Accountability Mechanisms: Implement me-bound, independent inves ga ons into custodial deaths.
6. Institutionalise Mental Wellness: Mandate regular psychological assessments and quarterly counselling for officers, as piloted in Bengaluru City Police.
7. Police Reforms: Implement recommendations of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission and the Prakash Singh case directives to ensure accountability and professional
conduct.
8. Legislative Safeguards: Enact a standalone law against custodial torture, as recommended by the Law Commission and international obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture
(UNCAT).
What are the Challenges in Curbing Custodial Torture?
a. Lack of Specific Anti-Torture Legislation: India signed the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997 but has not yet ratified it. While torture is indirectly addressed in laws like the Protec on of Human Rights Act, 1993, there is no standalone law criminalising it, making existing provisions vague, inadequate, and lacking stringent penalties.
b. Weak Enforcement & Impunity: Between 2017 and 2022, out of 345 judicial inquiries into custodial deaths, there were 123 arrests and 79 chargesheets, but zero convictions. In 74 human rights violations on cases involving illegal detention, torture, or deaths, only 3 convictions were recorded against the police.
c. Overburdened Ins tu ons: Human Rights Commissions (NHRC/SHRCs) lack binding powers and depend on government funding, limiting their effectiveness.
Prison overcrowding (at 130% capacity) and lack of independent oversight—with no effective police complaints authority in many states—create conditions that facilitate abuse and inhuman treatment.
d. Fear of Reprisal Among Victims: Victims often refrain from reporting torture due to fear of retaliation, lack of legal aid, and threats when filing complaints. Marginalized groups (Dalits, minori es and tribals) are especially vulnerable due to inadequate victim protection and compensation mechanisms.
e. Judicial and Systemic Failures: Lengthy judicial proceedings, compounded by overburdened courts, witness inmida on, and inadequate fast-track courts, delay justice in custodial death cases. Additionally, poor compliance with the D.K. Basu Guidelines (1996)—mandating arrest memos, medical exams, and legal access, along with ineffective magisterial inquiries, reflects a systemic failure and a lack of political will to enforce accountability or reform policing practices.
What are the Constitutional and Legal Safeguards in Place Against Custodial Death / Torture?
Constitutional Provisions –
1. Ar cle 14: Ar cle 144 ensures equality before the law, affirming that no one, including law enforcement agencies or officials, is above the law.
2. Ar cle 21: Ar cle 215 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
3. Ar cle 20(1): Ar cle 20(1)6 states that no person can be convicted for an act that was not an offence under the law at the me it was committed, thereby prohibiting excessive or retrospective punishment.
4. Ar cle 20(3): Ar cle 20(3)7 protects an individual from being compelled to self-incriminate, safeguarding the accused from coerced or forced confessions through torture or pressure.
5. Sec on 176(1A), CrPC8: Mandates judicial inquiry in case of custodial deaths.
6. NHRC Guidelines: Require immediate reporting, post-mortem videography, and independent investigation.
7. SC Judgments: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)9 laid down mandatory procedural safeguards during arrest and deten on.
Legal Provisions –
1. Sec on 120 of Bhara ya Nyaya Sanhita (2023)10: It penalises those who intentionally cause hurt or grievous hurt to extract confessions, information, through violence or coercion.
2. Sec on 35 of Bhara ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS, 2023)11: It mandates that arrests and detentions follow valid reasons, documented procedures.
3. Sec on 22 of Bhara ya Sakshya Adhiniyam (2023)12: It invalidates confessions made under inducement, threat, coercion, or promise.
International Provisions –
1. United Nations Charter, 1945: It mandates that prisoners be treated with dignity, affirming that their fundamental rights and freedoms remain protected under the Interna onal Covenant on Civil and Poli cal Rights (ICCPR-India is a signatory).
2. Universal Declara on of Human Rights (1948): It protects individuals from torture, cruel treatment, and enforced disappearances, ensuring the right to dignity and security.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion Custodial violence continues to be a severe violation of human rights in India, threatening human dignity, freedom, and the rule of law. Although legal safeguards exist, their enforcement remains weak. To rebuild public trust and reinforce the rule of law, India must implement a zero-tolerance policy towards custodial torture, ensuring that every custodial death is regarded as a matter of national concern, investigated impartially and punished with due accountability. Additionally, there is a need for cultural and a tudinal shifts within law enforcement agencies and society at large, emphasizing respect for human rights and the inherent dignity of all individuals.13 “A na on’s jus ce system is not only judged by how it punishes the guilty, but also by how it protects the powerless.”
