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

Abstract:

Custodial deaths in India expose the deep flaws in the criminal justice system and reflect a continuing pattern of abuse of power by law enforcement authorities. This article explores the major causes leading to custodial deaths, including torture, negligence, and misuse of authority. It examines the existing constitutional and legal framework designed to safeguard prisoners’ rights and analyzes the persistent lack of accountability in investigating and punishing offenders. The study also highlights the judiciary’s role in enforcing human rights through landmark judgments and emphasizes the need for comprehensive reforms to ensure transparency, responsibility, and adherence to the rule of law. 

Keywords: Custodial Death Police Custody Human Rights Violations Accountability Constitutional Safeguards Police Reform

1. Introduction:

Custodial death means the death of a person while they are in the custody of the police, judicial authorities, or any other law enforcement agency. In simple words, it happens when someone dies while being detained, interrogated, or imprisoned by the state. It is an unnatural or unlawful death of a person in state custody, it often occurs due to torture, ill-treatment, negligence, or abuse of power by officials responsible for the person’s safety.

• Types of Custodial Deaths

1. Police Custody Death – When a person dies while in the custody of the police, such as during arrest, interrogation, or lock-up detention.
   • Example: Death due to police torture or beating during questioning.
2. Judicial Custody Death – When a person dies in jail or prison after being sent there by the court.
   • Example: Death due to negligence by prison staff, poor medical care, or violence by inmates.
3. Other Custodial Deaths – When the death occurs in custody of other law enforcement agencies like the CBI, NIA, or armed forces during detention or investigation.

It represents one of the gravest violations of human rights and dignity in a democratic nation like India. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, dozens of custodial deaths are reported every year in India, though the actual figures are believed to be much higher due to underreporting and lack of transparency. Such deaths, whether caused by torture, negligence, or denial of medical aid, raise serious concerns about the functioning of the justice system. They not only violate Article 21 of the Constitution the right to life and personal liberty but also erode public confidence in law enforcement agencies.

Instances of custodial violence and torture abound the criminal justice landscape in India. According to political scientist and legal scholar Jinee Lokaneeta, the Police in postcolonial India have often been accused of using torture or third-degree interrogation in both routine and exceptional criminal cases and have been deemed responsible for hundreds of custodial deaths each year. News articles, reports by human rights organizations, journalistic investigations and data shared by the Government of India, all substantiate this fact. Yet, such crimes have not been addressed, proposed reforms have not been implemented and custodial violence and torture are considered to be a routine part of the Indian criminal justice system.[1]

The persistence of custodial deaths indicates a deep-rooted problem of institutional impunity, weak accountability, and poor enforcement of existing safeguards, revealing the dark side of law enforcement in a democratic state.

2. Causes and Circumstances of Custodial Deaths in India:

Custodial deaths occur in both police custody (before trial) and judicial custody (after a person is sent to jail). The major causes can be categorized into physical, administrative, and systemic factors.

(a) Physical Torture and Third-Degree Methods

Many custodial deaths occur due to physical torture during interrogation. Police officers often use violent methods to extract confessions or information, which can lead to severe injuries or death. Despite legal prohibitions, such practices continue due to lack of monitoring and accountability.                                                    The police may deploy brutality while dealing with a suspect for example beating, chopping nose, ears, fingers off, burning by cigarette or boiling water, inserting a hot metal rod into anus, suspending on wrist or ankle or forcing a head to be placed under dirty water, electric shock, keep the victim sleep free, solitary confinement in a dark place, insertion of foreign body into genitals. According to the Indian Constitution, every citizen has such a right as the right to life and liberty, while the torture included in the interrogation that tries to force a confession is illegal. It aspires to robustly guarantee the security of prisoners and suspects in police and judicial custody; nevertheless, officials like the police disregard these legal restrictions and commit incidents of abuse of detention and torture[2]

(b) Negligence and Medical Inattention

Deaths also occur because of delay or denial of medical care to detainees. Many prisoners suffer from illnesses that go untreated, and poor prison conditions aggravate their suffering. Custodial deaths come without any contribution of police, like the death of a criminal defendant or accused person can occur when they are sick. But issues arise when the police are involved in another person’s death by the person who is in their care at that particular time. It is however very difficult to prove that the application of the strategies by the police was not on fault due to the policies used in the cases.[3]

(c) Inhumane Conditions and Overcrowding

Prisons and lock-ups in India are often overcrowded and unhygienic. Shortage of food, sanitation, and basic facilities contributes to deteriorating health and, at times, death.

(d) Fake Encounters and Abuse of Power

In some instances, custodial deaths are disguised as “encounters” or “suicides” to shield officers from prosecution. This reflects the misuse of authority and lack of independent investigation mechanisms.

(e) Faults of the Authorities

The authorities often fail to follow procedural safeguards such as maintaining arrest memos, informing families of the arrest, or ensuring access to lawyers. Such violations facilitate the occurrence of abuse and hinder justice.

A tragic example is the Jayaraj and Bennix case (Tamil Nadu, 2020), where a father and son were brutally tortured to death in police custody, sparking national outrage and renewed calls for police reform.

3. Legal Framework and Safeguards for Prisoners:

India has a comprehensive legal and constitutional framework meant to prevent custodial torture and death, though implementation remains weak.

(a) Constitutional Provisions[4]

• Article 20(3): Protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves.
• Article 21: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty; any custodial torture or death is a direct violation.
• Article 22: Provides safeguards for arrested persons, including the right to be informed of reasons for arrest and to consult a legal practitioner.

(b) Statutory Framework

Section 182, BNSS, 2023 – This section prohibits police officers or persons in authority from offering inducements, threats, or promises to individuals during investigations. It emphasizes that individuals should be free to make statements voluntarily without coercion.

Section 43, BNSS,2023 –  An accused cannot be tortured to death who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life.

Section 46, BNSS,2023 – This section emphasizes that individuals who are arrested should not face excessive restraint. The focus is on ensuring that the level of restraint used is appropriate to prevent escape without being unnecessarily harsh.

Section 101, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023– If a police officer intentionally causes the death of a person in custody or inflicts such bodily injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, they can be charged under Section 101 BNS Punishment for murder.

Section 198, BNSS,2023 –  This provision requires a judicial inquiry to be conducted by a Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate for all cases of death, disappearance, or alleged rape in custody. 

(c) Human Rights Mechanisms

• Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993: Establishes the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Commissions to investigate human rights violations, including custodial deaths.
• NHRC Guidelines: National Human Right Commission Guidelines of National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, 2000 provides detailed guideline regarding to prearrest, arrest and post-arrest and also provides principle to enforcement of guidelines. These National Human Rights Commission’s guidelines are requested to all State to adopt them Mandate reporting of every custodial death within 24 hours and a magisterial inquiry within three months.

Despite these legal safeguards, violations persist due to weak enforcement, lack of supervision, and corruption within the system.

4. Lack of Accountability in Addressing Custodial Death:

Despite the existence of constitutional safeguards and statutory provisions, accountability in custodial deaths remains one of the weakest links in India’s criminal justice system.

In India, the Police hardly face any legal consequences for their brutality and violence against citizens. Accountability remains a challenge because of section 218(1) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provides immunity from prosecution to all public officials unless the Government approves it. This is a provision that the central and state governments often use to avoid prosecuting officials thus making conviction in cases of custodial torture and deaths difficult.[5] The latest term “fake or staged encounters” used in many news reports is known as custodial death. In such circumstances, all the evidence and documentation related to the incident stays with the police department, making it very difficult to prove their misjudgment of the truth. The end product of this is that it is practically impossible to prove that the government itself is guilty and the public authorities were involved in it.[6]

 According to the Indian National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB – India’s only official statistics on crime), in 2017 about 100 people died in police custody, but there were no convictions. In 62 cases of these custodial deaths, 33 police personnel were arrested, 27 were charge-sheeted, four were acquitted or discharged and none were convicted. In addition, the NCRB also recorded “56 cases against police personnel for human rights violations. In total, 57 police officers were arrested, 48 charge-sheeted, and only three convicted.” Numbers show that in the 18 years between 2001 and 2018, only 810 cases were registered, 334 charge-sheeted and only 26 police personnel were convicted. This abysmally low rate of conviction and accountability among the Police exists in a democracy where citizens are guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty.[7]

A major problem is that police officers investigate their own colleagues, which leads to bias and manipulation of evidence. The initial records such as arrest memos, station diaries, and medical reports are often fabricated to show the victim as violent or attempting escape. This internal investigation mechanism lacks independence and credibility, allowing the real offenders to evade punishment.

Bodies like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions have the power to inquire into such deaths, but their recommendations are advisory, not binding. The absence of a statutory mechanism to enforce disciplinary and criminal action against responsible officers results in impunity.

The failure of authorities to take responsibility for custodial deaths directly results in a lack of accountability and constitutes a serious violation of human rights. When law enforcement officers act with impunity, it erodes the fundamental guarantees of life, liberty, and dignity protected under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The absence of prompt investigation, disciplinary action, and prosecution encourages a culture of silence within the police force. This institutional negligence not only denies justice to victims and their families but also undermines the credibility of the criminal justice system.

Therefore, ensuring responsibility and transparency at every stage of custodial investigation is essential to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights.

5. Judiciary’s Role in Upholding Accountability:

The Indian judiciary has thus shown to be of a great importance actor in defining and expanding the area of custodial justice via path-breaking decisions. The Courts have always highlighted the fact that the fundamental principle of the society is upholding the rights of people in custody, that’s why custodial violence is always condemned and the law enforcement is always held responsible for their wrong actions. Judicial activism had lead to the development of legal principles, such as the presumption of innocence, the privilege of legal defense, the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners.[8]

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997), the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to prevent custodial torture and deaths, including mandatory arrest memos, medical examinations, and judicial oversight[9]. Similarly, in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993), the Court recognized the principle of state liability for custodial deaths and awarded compensation to the victim’s family, holding that the State is vicariously responsible for the actions of its agents.[10]

In Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006), the Court emphasized police reforms and the creation of Police Complaints Authorities to ensure accountability in cases of misconduct, including custodial deaths.[11]

6. Need For Reform:

Despite judicial vigilance, the persistence of custodial deaths shows the urgent need for systemic reforms.

• Enactment of Anti-Torture Law: India has not yet ratified the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). A specific domestic law criminalizing torture is necessary.
• Independent Oversight Mechanisms: Establishing independent police complaint authorities at both state and district levels can ensure impartial investigations.
• Mandatory CCTV Surveillance: Continuous monitoring of all police stations and lock-ups should be made compulsory, with footage regularly reviewed.
• Training and Sensitization: Police and prison staff must receive regular training on human rights and ethical interrogation methods.
• Medical and Legal Aid: Ensure regular medical check-ups for detainees and easy access to legal aid services.
• Fast-Track Courts: Cases involving custodial deaths should be tried in fast-track courts to ensure timely justice.

Implementing these reforms will not only protect prisoners’ rights but also restore faith in India’s justice system.

7. Conclusion:

Custodial deaths reflect the failure of the state to uphold its constitutional duty to protect the life and liberty of every individual, including those in its custody. Despite strong constitutional guarantees and judicial interventions, the persistence of such deaths reveals deep-rooted structural flaws, lack of accountability, inadequate training, and institutional apathy. There is a pressing need for comprehensive reform of police and prison systems, with emphasis on transparency, independent oversight, and human rights protection. Every death in custody is not merely a statistic but a tragedy that questions the very foundation of justice. True justice demands not only punishing the perpetrators but also transforming the system that enables such abuse.

References:

[1] Watch the State, Judicial and Administrative Accountability in Cases of Custodial Deaths in India (2015-2016) – 1, THE POLIS PROJECT (July 24, 2023), https://thepolisproject.com/research/judicial-and-administrative-accountability-in-cases-of-custodial-deaths-in-india-2015-2016-1/.

[2] Vidhi Ahlawat & Hadiya Khan, Custodial Death with Reference to India Perspective, 4 Mazedan State Policies & Legal Review 5 (2024), https://mdl.mazedan.com/uploads/MSPLR0401002(5-9).pdf.

[3] Vidhi Ahlawat & Hadiya Khan, Custodial Death with Reference to India Perspective, 4 Mazedan State Policies & Legal Review 5 (2024), https://mdl.mazedan.com/uploads/MSPLR0401002(5-9).pdf.

[4] India Const. arts. 20(3), 21, 22.

[5] Watch the State, The Obligation to Deny: Accountability (or the Lack Thereof) in Cases of Custodial Deaths in India – 3, The Polis Project (July 31, 2023), https://thepolisproject.com/research/the-obligation-to-deny-accountability-or-the-lack-thereof-in-cases-of-custodial-deaths-in-india-3/.

[6] Vidhi Ahlawat & Hadiya Khan, Custodial Death with Reference to India Perspective, 4 Mazedan State Policies & Legal Review 5 (2024), https://mdl.mazedan.com/uploads/MSPLR0401002(5-9).pdf.

[7] Watch the State, Judicial and Administrative Accountability in Cases of Custodial Deaths in India (2015-2016) – 1, THE POLIS PROJECT (July 24, 2023), https://thepolisproject.com/research/judicial-and-administrative-accountability-in-cases-of-custodial-deaths-in-india-2015-2016-1/.

[8] Vidhi Ahlawat & Hadiya Khan, Custodial Death with Reference to India Perspective, 4 Mazedan State Policies & Legal Review 5 (2024), https://mdl.mazedan.com/uploads/MSPLR0401002(5-9).pdf.

[9] D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 S.C.C. 416 (India).

[10] Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 S.C.C. 746 (India)

[11] Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 S.C.C. 1 (India).