Published on: 19th January 2026
Authored By: Khushi Bhatnagar
University of Mumbai Law Academy
INTRODUCTION
[1]Despite a robust constitutional framework and frequent judicial reviews and interpretations, there are large number of reported, and multifarious un-reported custodial deaths that raises concerns for safety and livelihood of the person in custody. People continue to die in police and judicial custody due to torture, negligence, denial of medical care and systematic immunity. Custodial death refers to death of a person under supervision of the state, this mainly includes:
- Police custody ~ Death occurred during arrest, interrogation or while lodged in police lock-up
- Judicial custody ~ Death occurred when a person is in remand to prison or rehabilitation center or in other judicial institutions.
The Constitution of India guarantees fundamental rights that are not supposed to be violated at any cost. They are considered to be the basic rights a human is born with and should not be abandoned even during critical circumstances. Custodial deaths are profound forms of human rights violation, still the state lacks to take adequate actions to resolve the issues. Article 21 ~ Right to life and personal liberty and Article 22 ~ Safeguards on arrest and detention and the broader principle of Rule of law is being violated.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) passed a report of 2023-24, which clearly shows 2,346 proclamation of deaths in judicial custody and 160 reportedly in police custody alone. In the midst of 2016 to 2022, NCRB and RTI estimated over 11600 custodial deaths nationally, alarming the government of these catastrophe, especially in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The figures still do not showcase the underlying numbers as many custodial deaths are termed as suicides, accidents or natural causes, to hide the incompetency of the system. Research and NHRC exhibits that custodial deaths often involve Physical torture, Psychological torture, Denial of medical care, Overcrowding, Malnutrition, Diseases or Suicides. Custodial deaths should not be considered as a single act but, It is a series of violations endured by a person in custody.
CAUSES, CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND REFORMS.
[2]The causes of custodial deaths in India are heterogenous and interlinked. Foremost among them is the widespread use of torture as an investigative tool which is not measurable as it is protected by the State because it is considered essential. Police officers, often under pressure to solve cases quickly or extract names of accomplices, recourse to beatings, electric shocks, sleep deprivation, and other physical or psychological torture. Poor forensic infrastructure and long investigation periods further encourages shortcuts in the form of violent and inhumane interrogation which causes a fear in the minds of people. Structural factors such as lack of training, understaffing, and poor working conditions also contribute to an environment where brutality is tolerated and protected by the officials. In prisons, overcrowding, inadequate healthcare, delayed medical care, and poor sanitation contribute to deaths that are preventable in nature, especially the ones took by their own hands. Many victims belong to differentiated communities—Dalits, Adivasis, minorities, migrant labors, and the poor—who often lack the economic or social capital to defend themselves against cast or money. Their invisibility makes them vulnerable to abuse with minimal intervention by public officials. The culture of immunity entrenched within law-enforcement agencies exaggerates the issue, as officers often protect each other by providing false records or creating fabricated narratives and evidences about the incident.
Despite the recurring nature of custodial deaths, India possesses a fairly elaborate legal and constitutional framework intended to prevent custodial violence. The Constitution provides the strongest foundation. Article 20(3) protects individuals from self-incrimination, while Article 21 has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to prohibit torture and inhuman treatment.[3] In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines on arrest and detention, including the preparation of arrest memos, medical examinations every 48 hours, mandatory identification of officers, production before a magistrate within 24 hours, and information to relatives of the arrested person. These guidelines were declared enforceable as law under Article 141. Earlier, in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the Court established the principle that the State is strictly liable for violations of fundamental rights in custody and that compensation is a legitimate constitutional remedy. Articles 22, 32, and 226 further secure procedural safeguards and provide the right to seek judicial intervention through writs of habeas corpus and compensation petitions.
Statutory safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) aim to prevent abuse during and after arrest. Sections 41 and 41B restrict arbitrary arrests and prescribe mandatory procedures to be followed. Section 41D guarantees the right of an arrested person to meet an advocate during interrogation. Sections 54 and 55A mandate medical examinations and impose a duty on police officers to ensure the safety and health of detained persons. Importantly, Section 176(1A) requires a judicial magistrate to conduct an inquiry into every death, disappearance, or rape in police or judicial custody. The Indian Evidence Act provides additional protections by invalidating confessions obtained under coercion or while in police custody unless made before a magistrate. However, despite these frameworks, India still lacks a particular anti-torture law that defines and criminalizes torture in line with international standards to protect the dignity, personal life and liberty of an individual, even though the Law Commission has again and again recommended introducing Section 114B in the Evidence Act to presume police responsibility for injuries or deaths in custody unless proven otherwise.
[4]Institutionally, Prominent bodies like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) play a crucial role in supervising custodial circumstances, conducting inquiries, awarding compensation, and recommending disciplinary action. NHRC guidelines make it mandatory for states to report every custodial death within 24 hours of the incident and to conduct video-recorded post-mortems without fail. Nevertheless, NHRC’s recommendations are not binding, and its effectiveness depends heavily on state compliance and actions. Magistrates too play an evident role through remand hearings and inspections of lock-ups and prisons. However, in many cases, magistrates mechanically authorise police custody without interrogating allegations of ill-treatment, thus weakening this layer of oversight and due to this poor investigation the system has severely broke-down. Internal disciplinary mechanisms within police departments rarely result in strong penalties, therefore reinforcing the perception that officers are shielded from legal consequences for custodial violence and can continue with their amateurish and unprofessional behaviour.
Accountability for custodial deaths in India remains notably poor. Although police officers can be prosecuted for offences such as murder, culpable homicide, assault and wrongful confinement under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita , convictions are extremely rare due to several structural and judicial barriers. Investigations are repeatedly conducted by officers from the same department, creating conflicts of interest and opportunities to fabricate or tamper with evidence. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal procedure, further complicates prosecution by requiring prior government permission to prosecute public servants for actions reportedly done in the course of duty, and state governments often deny such sanctions to protect the image and dignity of the system . Witness intimidation, fabricated medical reports, biased post-mortem certificates, and manipulated records of arrest and detention also obstruct justice. This systemic failure leads to a cycle where custodial deaths occur repeatedly without soulful accountability, creating social acceptance of violence and torture by authorities under the umbrella of maintaining law and order and maintaining peace.
Judicial remedies, however, offer some relief. High Courts and the Supreme Court frequently award compensation to victims’ families for violations of fundamental rights that are basic and crucial by birth and may order independent investigations by the CBI or SITs in cases where local police involvement is suspected to cause any kind of Hindrance . Courts have also highlighted that compensation awarded in writ jurisdiction does not exempt criminal prosecution of responsible officers. Nonetheless, judicial intervention is reactive, dependent on litigation, and often delayed due to uncountable reasons. Victims’ families, especially from regional or marginalized communities, may not have the resources or access to approach higher courts, leaving many cases unattended.
Several structural, cultural and societal obstacles continue to undermine the effectiveness of existing safeguards provided by the constitution. India still has not ratified the UN Convention against Torture (UNCAT), largely due to the absence of a comprehensive domestic law criminalising torture and unethical procedures. The police system continues to function under the legacy of the colonial Police Act of 1861, formulated to enforce authority rather than serve the public. Reforms mandated by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), such as insulating the police from political pressure, establishing independent complaints authorities, and instituting fixed tenures for officers, remain poorly implemented in most states. Poor training and lack of sensitisation on human rights also contributes to an environment where torture is seen as an acceptable tool of investigation and no questions can be raised against the same. Societal attitudes further compound the problem, as a significant section of the public supports the use of third-degree methods on suspects, particularly in heinous crimes, strengthening the implicit mandate for violent policing. Though public has little to no direct involvement in the case, they still impact the procedure by expressing their discontentment through Candle marches, protest, social media etc.
Given the scale and severity of the issue, meaningful reforms must be multidimensional. India urgently needs a comprehensive anti-torture law that clearly defines torture, prescribes stringent punishments, creates an independent mechanism for investigation, and shifts the burden of proof in custodial injury cases in line with international standards. Enacting the long-pending Prevention of Torture Bill and incorporating the Law Commission’s proposed amendments to the Evidence Act would be crucial steps. Police reforms must be implemented in letter and spirit to reduce political interference, professionalise the force, and inculcate a service-oriented policing culture. Arrest procedures must be strictly monitored through digital records, CCTV cameras in all lock-ups, and real-time reporting to magistrates.
Forensic capacity must be strengthened and officials should be trained accordingly so that investigations rely on scientific methods rather than coercion. Regular medical examinations, mental-health support for prisoners, and improvements in prison infrastructure are necessary to reduce deaths caused by negligence or lack of care. Prison officers and Wardens should be trained in a manner so they can tackle all kind of stiuations.
Equally important is strengthening accountability mechanisms. Independent police complaints authorities should be fully functional in all states, with powers to investigate allegations of custodial violence without interference. Judicial oversight must become more rigorous, with magistrates required to personally examine detainees for signs of torture during remand hearings. NHRC recommendations should be made binding, at least in custodial death cases, to ensure compliance. Training programmes for police officers must include sensitisation on human rights, constitutional obligations, and alternatives to coercive interrogation. Public awareness campaigns can also shift societal attitudes, highlighting that custodial violence does not strengthen justice but undermines it by encouraging illegal and unreliable investigative practices.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, custodial deaths in India are a persistent violation of human rights that expose deep systemic weaknesses in law enforcement, prison administration, and accountability structures. Despite constitutional guarantees, Fundamental and legal safeguards and judicial guidelines, custodial deaths continue largely due to structural impunity and corruption within the system, poor implementation of safeguards and a policing culture that normalises violence due to adequate protection provided to the officials. Addressing this issue requires comprehensive legal reform, robust institutional accountability, political will, and cultural transformation within the police and society at large. A democratic nation governed by the rule of law cannot tolerate the death of individuals in state custody it violates Article 21 and 22 of the constitution which are crucial, and ensuring dignity, safety and justice for every detainee is essential to uphold the fundamental values of the Constitution. It is the duty the Constitution to inculcate provisions that prevents these circumstances to occur, so that the people of India can rely on their working and don’t come on streets or opt for circumstances of protests to fight for their basic rights.
[1] Sankar Sen, ‘Custodial Deaths in India’( svpnpa.gov.in)
[2] Custodial torture in India ( DhrishtiIas.com, 4 July 2025).
[3] D.K Basu v. State of Bengal (1996) 1 SCC 416.
[4] Krishna Deva Rao,’ Custodial Deaths’ 1994.
