Published on: 12th January 2026
Authored By: Yash sharma
IMS LAW COLLEGE NOIDA
Abstract
Custodial deaths in India reflect the perpetuation of human rights violation, showing systemic failure in criminal justice administration. Custodial death is generally understood to be a death that takes place when the dead person is in the custody of the police or the judicial authority. These deaths are often caused by torture, medical neglect, or foul play and represent a brazen infringement of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This article discusses the legal regime governing custodial deaths in India: the constitutional scheme under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, statutory provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Criminal Procedure Code, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023; the mechanisms for ensuring accountability; and challenges such as institutional impunity, delayed investigation, and the role of the National Human Rights Commission. Next, it presents reforms: anti-torture legislation, better police training, and technological oversight. It develops the discourses of conflicting issues: (i) a trade-off between the needs of law enforcement and safeguards against human rights violations, resistance from police agencies, and the gap in international obligations; (ii) using recent statistics of custodial deaths-more than 28,000 since 2009-and landmark cases, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, demanding urgency for structural changes to regain people’s confidence and uphold democratic values. It calls for zero tolerance for custodial violence to avoid such preventable tragedies.
Introduction
Custodial deaths in India have been a stain on the country’s democratic fabric, symbolizing the dark underbelly of law enforcement, where gross human rights violations are committed at the hands of power imbalances. Such deaths occur when individuals either detained by police or held in judicial custody die from overt torture and beating to subtle forms of neglect, such as denial of medical care, or induced suicides under duress. The issue gained renewed scrutiny in recent years with high-profile cases, such as the 2020 deaths of Jayaraj and Bennicks in Tamil Nadu, where father and son died allegedly due to police brutality, and the 2025 case of Ajith Kumar, who suffered 44 injuries in custody. Such incidents erode public confidence in the police and expose the inadequacies of a system that is supposed to protect citizens.
Custodial violence essentially has its roots in colonial policing models, which relied more on control than accountability. After independence, India adopted a constitutional framework that championed dignity and liberty, but the fact that these deaths have continued, averaging over 1,500 annually in recent decades, shows the hiatus between law and practice. According to NHRC data, over 28,000 custodial deaths have been reported since 2009, with the majority being in judicial custody, often attributed to “natural causes” that mask underlying abuses. In 2022 alone, 1,995 prisoners died in judicial custody, of which 159 were unnatural deaths, according to the Global Torture Index 2025. By mid-2025, state-wise figures show Uttar Pradesh leads with over 200 cases, followed by Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, thus underlining regional disparities in the enforcement of laws related to custodial violence.
It is a multidimensional problem: individual misbehavior and failures at the institutional level, such as overburdened police forces, outdated training, and a culture of impunity. India’s ranking as a “high-risk” country in the Global Torture Index 2025 underlines widespread
police brutality and the misuse of laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which allows detentions without oversight for lengthy periods. Internationally, criticism lies in not having ratified the UN Convention Against Torture signed in 1997, thereby leaving a gaping gap in anti-torture legislation within the country.
This paper discusses the legal framework that is supposedly designed to prevent these abuses, the accountability mechanisms for perpetrators, proposed reforms addressing systemic lapses, and the conflicting issues that prevent progress. From analysis of judicial precedents to statutory provisions and empirical data, all are used to give a holistic perspective while it advocates for reforms balancing security imperatives with human rights imperatives.
Legal Framework Governing Custodial Deaths
The legal architecture, as it exists in India to deal with custodial deaths, is rooted in constitutional principles and supplemented by criminal statutes. However, this often falls short in preventing abuses because of lapses in implementation. At the core is Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees life and personal liberty, interpreted by the Supreme Court to include protection against torture and inhuman treatment in custody. This provision, read with Article 22, mandates safeguards against arbitrary arrest; there is a requirement that detainees be informed of grounds for arrest and produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. Article 20(3) further prohibits self-incrimination aimed at curbing coercive interrogation tactics. Article 14 ensures equality before the law, theoretically preventing discriminatory treatment in custody.
The BNS 2023, which replaces the Indian Penal Code, statutorily punishes acts leading to custodial deaths. Causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession is criminalized under Sections 330 and 331 of the Act, respectively, with punishments extending to 10 years imprisonment. Section 302 deals with murder, and Section 304 dealing with culpable homicide not amounting to murder applies in cases of fatal beatings. The CrPC mandated that every custodial death should be investigated by a judicial magistrate under Section 176(1A), shifting from executive inquiries with a view to ensuring impartiality. Further, Section 41 stipulates conditions for arrest without warrant, underscoring necessity and proportionality.
The BSA 2023, replacing the Indian Evidence Act, introduces Section 114-B, which presumes that injuries sustained in custody were inflicted by police officers unless proven otherwise, easing the burden on victims’ families. In addition to this, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, establishes the NHRC, which is empowered to investigate custodial violations and recommend compensation or prosecutions. NHRC guidelines prescribe custodial deaths to be reported within 24 hours, their post-mortem examination by independent doctors, and videography of autopsies to prevent tampering.
Judicial interventions have strengthened this framework. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court laid down 11 guidelines for arrest, including medical examination, informing relatives, and preserving arrest memos, making any violation contempt of court. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) laid down state liability in custodial deaths, awarding compensation under Article 32 for violation of fundamental rights. Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) confined routine arrests by requiring justification. More recently, in Paramvir Singh Saini v. State of Punjab (2020), the Court directed the installation of CCTV cameras at police stations with night vision and audio, interconnected with oversight committees. In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016), the judiciary addressed issues of overcrowding and neglect in judicial custody.
Despite these provisions, the gaps persist. India does not have a separate anti-torture law, though the Law Commission’s 273rd Report (2017) recommended such legislation in conformity with UNCAT. Similarly, the Prevention of Torture Bill, introduced in 2010, lapsed without enactment, leaving custodial violence addressed piece-by-piece under the general criminal laws. Such a framework, though apparently robust on paper, is undermined by non compliance, as reflected by low conviction rates-less than 1% in reported cases.
Accountability Mechanisms and Challenges
The accountability mechanism in custodial deaths involves a range of judicial, administrative, and oversight bodies, but largely these are weakened due to systemic barriers. The NHRC receives complaints regarding custodial deaths and investigates the same, recommending disciplinary action, prosecution, or compensation; however, these are purely recommendatory in nature and, therefore, have limited scope for enforcement-states manage to comply with only about 60% of recommendations. The SHRCs replicate this role at the state level, but most SHRCs suffer from insufficient funding and unfilled vacancies.
The same is followed by obligatory magisterial inquiries under CrPC Section 176, which includes post-mortems and statements of witnesses. Courts compensate through writ petitions under Articles 32 and 226, as in Nilabati Behera, where the state was held vicariously liable. Administrative measures include departmental inquiries and suspensions, although most of these are superficial; for example, in the case of 2024 Raja, the officers received very minor sentences.
Challenges abound. Institutional impunity shields officers, with internal investigations biased because of conflicts of interest; police are often asked to investigate their own. Delays plague the system: FIRs against officers are rarely filed promptly, trials drag on, and more than 70 percent of cases failed to get charge sheets years later according to NCRB data. Witness intimidation is rampant, almost without any substantial protection program. Political interference protects errant officials, especially in sensitive cases involving minorities or dissenters under controversial laws like the UAPA. A 2023 Human Rights Watch report noted that police beatings led to deaths, impunity fueled by a culture of “brotherhood.”
While BSA makes certain evidentiary presumptions, the burden of proof remains high for victims’ families. Neglect is ramped up by overcrowding-jail occupancy has reached 150%-
and these deaths are classified as “natural” to avoid scrutiny. A study on autopsies conducted in Rishikesh up to 2025 revealed that many of the “suicides” had previous signs of abuse. These mechanisms exist but plainly fail minorities, according to a 2025 journal on the gaps in police reform.
Reforms and Recommendations
Addressing custodial deaths requires comprehensive reforms spanning legislation, training, and technology. First would be the passing of a specific anti-torture law, as recommended by the 273rd Report of the Law Commission, defining torture broadly and providing for minimum sentences of 7-10 years. The ratification of UNCAT would bring India in line with international norms, making independent investigations into allegations of torture compulsory.Reforms are essential in the police: modernize training to focus on human rights, ethics, and trauma-informed policing; and reallocate 5% of budgets to mental health support against officer burnout. Independent investigative agencies should be established for impartial investigations of custodial cases, such as a national-level police complaints authority. Fast-track courts for trials of these cases will expedite justice by reducing delays.
Other technological interventions that are mooted as necessarily to be made part of procedures include compulsory CCTV in stations and prisons with real-time monitoring and tamper-proof storage. This, in essence, is the ruling in Paramvir Singh Saini. It would certainly go a long way in curbing the abuse of torture if interrogations and medical tests at the time of arrest and detention are audio-visually recorded. The NHRC needs to be strengthened by making its recommendations binding and increasing its funding.
Public and civil society involvement is very important: awareness about rights, whistleblower protections, and media scrutiny place pressure on authorities. Witness protection schemes, with financial assistance, would facilitate testimony. For judicial custody, reduce overcrowding through bail reforms and alternative sentencing.
Pilot initiatives, such as mental health units for police in Kerala or counseling in Bengaluru, show promise and need to be scaled up nationally. Ultimately, a cultural shift from punitive to accountable policing is required, with zero tolerance enforced through more stringent penalties.
Conflicting Issues Relating to Custodial Deaths Custodial deaths in India reflect deep tensions between human rights imperatives and the operational demands of law enforcement. A crucial tension lies in balancing police powers with individual liberties: whereas the police demand discretion in high-crime scenarios, the ambiguity of laws such as the Police Act 1861 facilitates abuse, according to critics, at the expense of basic rights. Add to this the “fake encounters,” which involve extrajudicial killings on the pretext of justifiable self-defense, in blatant contravention of Article 21. Reforms to policing are resisted from within the force, which sees them as sapping morale when staff is short and risks run high, but human rights groups criticize the “brotherhood” culture for encouraging impunity. As documented in a 2025 report by REDRESS, torture appears normalized, as NHRC data indicates continued
violations despite guidelines. Minorities suffer disproportionately, raising equity concerns: it remains discriminatory treatment under UAPA, impeding Article 14. There is a conflict between international and domestic priorities: While the reasons for non-ratification of UNCAT by India indeed smack of sovereignty, domestic gaps continue to perpetuate abuses. Deaths in judicial custody highlight resource constraints pitted against rights: Overcrowding of prisons leads to neglect of prisoners, fiscal limitations pitted against dignity. These conflicts bring up the need for nuanced reforms that address root causes without undermining security. Conclusion Custodial deaths in India are not isolated aberrations but symptoms of a flawed system premised upon control rather than compassion. The fact that such tragedies continue unabated is a result of persistent impunity and serious implementation gaps, despite a sound legal framework and judicial safeguards, with over 28,000 lost lives since 2009. Reforms will have to be holistic: from instituting anti-torture laws and enhancing accountability to bringing about a culture of change in policing, bridge the gap between rights and realities. Only unwavering commitment to human dignity can eradicate this scourge for India to transform custody from peril to protection.
