Custodial Deaths in India: Legal Framework, Accountability and Reforms

Abstract

Indian custodial deaths are one of the most serious human rights issues that continue to reflect deeply embedded problems within the law enforcement and criminal justice systems. In spite of the guarantees under the Constitution of life and liberty under Article 21 and the legal protection afforded under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, police and judicial custody deaths continue to occur. This study analyzes the current law governing custodial deaths, such as the role played by statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and guidelines from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). It also discusses the mechanisms of accountability—legal as well as institutional—available against errant officials, including their adequacy and enforcement in practice. The research also analyzes landmark judgments that have developed custodial jurisprudence and examines lacunae in the processes of investigation, prosecution, and compensation. Finally, the paper suggests reform avenues to ensure transparency, independent monitoring, and conformity with human rights standards through police reforms, technical interventions, and strengthened enforcement of accountability norms. With this analysis, the study aims to make a policy contribution towards developing the rule of law and preventing custodial deaths from taking place in India in the future.

Introduction

Custodial deaths in India hold one of the most serious violations of human rights and justice. A custodial death occurs when a person dies while in the custody of law enforcement, whether in police, judicial, or remand custody. Even in the face of constitutional measures and statutory protections aimed at preventing abuses – such as those guaranteed by Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution and sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) designed to eradicate abuses of power – custodial torture and deaths continue to raise serious questions of accountability and integrity of justice. India has moral and legal responsibilities as a party to several international agreements, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to respect the right to life and to safeguard individuals’ rights against torture and inhuman treatment. However, reports from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and civil society organizations emphasize continuous failures in law enforcement practices, lack of impartial investigations, and institutional biases that encourage impunity. This research aims to understand the legal framework regulating custodial deaths in India, scrutinize the mechanisms in place to hold law enforcement officials accountable (if in fact it exists), and assess the role of judicial and policy reform in preventing custodial deaths. The study aims to point out inherent structural gaps, inefficient procedures, and areas in need of reform, in order to contribute to protecting human rights, the rule of law and police accountability within the Indian justice system.

The existing legal system, that regulates deaths that occur while a person is in custody

The current legal framework for custodial deaths in India is constructed from constitutional, statutory, and international human rights principles safeguarding human life and personal liberty. The Indian Constitution, through Articles 20, 21, and 22, protects individuals against torture, arbitrary arrest, and inhumane treatment. A variety of statutory provisions such as the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and Indian Evidence Act lay down the procedures for arrest, investigation, and punishment for acts committed by police agents. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also issues guidelines ensuring transparency and accountability of law enforcement to custody-related cases. At the international level, India is legally obliged to international human rights codifications such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which categorically prohibit torture and affirm the right to life. These legal frameworks and the principles that infuse them, when these compendium sometimes apply to, constitutionally, operationally, replace and beyond, are a response towards preventing custodial deaths, ensuring accountability of formal agents of law enforcement, working towards ensuring justice and dignified forms of human life.

The function of the legal system and human rights organizations in guaranteeing justice and accountability in situations involving deaths that occur while a person is in custody.

The judicial system and human rights institutions, especially the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), are essential to accountability and justice for custodial deaths in India. It must be noted that the judiciary has championed the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and has passed numerous landmark judgments, such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), providing comprehensive guidelines for custodial torture and death. Courts also direct independent investigating agencies, order compensation to victims’ families and hold the state and its officials responsible for such violations. Created under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the NHRC operates as a watchdog against human rights violations including custodial deaths and deaths in police or judicial custody on the specific requirement of reporting all custodial deaths within 24 hours of them happening; the NHRC conducts an inquiry and can recommend disciplinary or legal action against any official who committed an infraction. In conjunction with the judiciary and the NHRC are critical components to both transparency, accountability and deterrence to the abuse of power, but ongoing challenges like delayed justice and ineffective enforcement of rights or newfound knowledge about the extent of the issues puts their full efficacy at risk.

The main causes and structural flaws that lead to torture and fatalities in detention.

Custodial torture and deaths in India are frequently a result of systemic flaws, combined with institutional failures. Police misconduct is a significant factor, illustrated through continued use of excessive force, prolonged interrogations, and torture to punish suspects or obtain confessions. Compounding the problem is the lack of adequate levels of training, accountability, and oversight. The investigative process is also flawed — investigations into custodial deaths are often conducted by the same department that was involved in the death, resulting in significant bias and evidence manipulation. There is also a lack of transparency; many cases remain undocumented or unreported, and provide victims’ families with barriers when seeking justice. Inaction against violations, failure to monitor with CCTV in police stations, and judicial delays exacerbate the challenges posed by impunity toward law enforcement. Overall, systemic flaws contribute to creating an environment of impunity, where violations occur without any sanctioning or repercussions leading to a cycle of custodial violence.

Policy changes and legislative initiatives to improve the criminal justice system’s accountability systems, stop violence against inmates, and increase transparency.

A sound reform and policy intervention is necessary to prevent custodial violence and ensure accountability in India’s criminal justice system. The implementation of police accountability systems, like independent complaints authorities and regular human rights trainings for police, is necessary. The Supreme Court’s direction for installation of CCTV systems is critical from a transparency and deterrence of torture perspective across police stations and lock-ups. Strengthening the system of judicial oversight with mandatory magisterial inquiries to follow custodial deaths and fast track courts can speed the delivery of justice. In addition creating a system where the government adopts strict enforcement of NHRC guidelines, where independent investigations are completed and delivered by scholars and practitioners from neutral agencies will demand attention to these phenomena. Action is needed to adopt accountability mechanisms, such as laws that specifically criminalize torture, as envisioned in the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). Lastly, improving public awareness of citizen’s rights and creating/elevating evidence systems (e.g., forensic, digital evidence) can enhance transparency. Together these actions can provide way for public trust, limit impunity and enhance dignity beyond condemnation and accountability, at the very least.

Case laws

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

Highlight:

In this important case, the Court elaborated guidelines previously outlined in earlier case law. These include the mandatory issuance of arrest memos, informing relatives of the arrest, medical examination to ensure safety and security of the arrested person, and ensuring the arrested person is produced before a magistrate. The Court noted that torture, in any form against any person, is a violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) of the Constitution.

Applicability: The case would help reinforce the legal framework and accountability mechanisms.

Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746

Highlight:

The Supreme Court held the State vicariously liable for custodial deaths and awarded compensation to the victim’s family. It also reiterated that public functionaries are not exempt from criminal responsibility for infringing upon fundamental rights.

Importance: It pertains to the role of the judiciary and the accountability of agents for violating human rights.

People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 10 SCC 635

Title: Fake Encounter / Custodial Killings

Highlight: The case was concerned with killings in fake encounters or custodial killings. The Court laid down guidelines relating to independent investigations, FIR registration, and vetting by the judiciary in all cases of deaths resulting from encounters.

Significance: Dealt with systemic failure, unsatisfactory investigations and raised issues about transparency.

Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re (2016) 3 SCC 700

Highlight:

the Supreme Court initiated a suo motu inquiry into prison conditions, including issues of inhumane treatment, medical care, and custodial deaths. The Supreme Court intervened and instructed the government to take all appropriate steps to ensure that prisoners were treated humanely and received adequate medical care while also taking steps to avoid custodial death.

Relevance: Supports objectives for reforms and policy measures.

Conclusion

Custodial deaths in India highlight the criminal justice system’s serious failure to prioritize the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution – particularly the right to life, and dignity under Article 21. The presence of custodial torture and deaths despite a well-entrenched legal framework, and numerous instances of judicial intervention suggests that the issues that facilitate police misconduct, lack of accountability, and institutional indifference are systemic in nature. In the interest of achieving justice, systemic reform is needed in India, including meaningful oversight, accountable and transparent investigations, independent checking of police, and effective measures to implement and adhere to human rights standards. Ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) will further demonstrate India’s commitment to human rights, as will enacting comprehensive anti-torture legislation. Ultimately, preventing deaths in custody means much more than just legal or institutional reform; reform requires cultural change in policing that prioritizes respect for human dignity, transparency, and accountability to the rule of law.

Reference

1. Millo, T., Sikary, A. K., and Jhamad, A. R. (2014). An analysis of 13 years’ worth of custodial deaths in New Delhi.  Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine Journal.
2. Bibliographic Details on Torture and Custodial Deaths from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). nic.in.  provides important reports and a comprehensive bibliography.
3. “Systemic Difficulties in Preventing Deaths in Custody.” Journal of Law Review in India (IJLR) 5(4) (2025).
4. Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution (1950) (Protection of life, liberty, and rights of arrested persons).
5. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and its authority are established under the Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993.
6. Articles 3, 5, and 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (Right to life and protection against torture).
7. Chahal, P. S., Aggarwal, A., Singh, S. P., & Kakkar, G. S. (2024). Custodial Deaths: An Ignored Problem.  Forensic Medicine & Toxicology Journal.
8. Jain, E., and Lamba, J. (2023). An Analysis of Custodial Violence and Police Accountability in India.  The International Research Journal of IARS.