Custodial Violence and Legal Safeguards: An Analysis of Judicial Responses and the Effectiveness of Human Rights Protections

Abstract

In the worldwide, Custodial violence remains a critical human rights issue, particularly in democratic country such as India, where incidents of police brutality and abuse in custody are alarmingly high. These violations are largely driven by systemic inefficiencies, lack of accountability, and misuse of arbitrary power by law enforcement agencies. It highlights the judicial responses to custodial violence, reviewing landmark cases like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) and other case laws that mandated reforms in police practices. The paper further examines the effectiveness of these safeguards in preventing abuse, emphasizing the role of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, and the media in exposing custodial crimes¹. 

It concludes by proactive role of Indian judiciary to limit the unrestraint power using while custodial violence and now its necessity to introduce new policies, reform, and stronger accountability mechanism under the enforcement agencies especially police reform to protect human rights and ensure fair justice.

Key Words: Custodial Violence, Legal Safeguards, Human Rights Protections, Judicial Response, Police Accountability, 

Introduction  

Custodial violence remains one of the most egregious violations of human rights worldwide, and India is no exception. Custodial torture raised as a serious issue that proclamation the need for systemic, structured criminal law reforms and its implementation by law enforcement agencies for better protection of individuals’ human as well as fundamental rights. 

A recent example of this ongoing issue is the Badlapur encounter case, where the custodial death of Akshay Shinde has drawn attention to the deep flaws within India’s justice system. Akshay’s parents, having endured the emotional and legal turmoil, informed the Bombay High Court that they wish to withdraw from the case, citing exhaustion from the prolonged legal battle and the toll it has taken on their lives. This case underscores not only the brutal realities of custodial violence but also the immense pressure and emotional distress faced by the victims’ families, who are often left to grapple with both the trauma of loss and the inefficiencies of the justice system.

Hence, individuals have been guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the “right to live with dignity and well-being of every person”. In addition, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993⁶ addresses violation of human rights, including custodial torture.

However, by critically analyzes the legal protections available against custodial violence, focusing on judicial responses and their effectiveness in protecting human rights. Through an examination of landmark cases, including Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana (1980), Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa (1993), D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), and PUCL v. Union of India (2003)⁸ evolving legislative frameworks, such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the paper seeks to emphasize the role of the judiciary, media, and human rights institutions like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), National Crime Records Bureau in combating custodial violence.  

Overview of Custodial Violence: Definition and Forms

The Custodial violence makes reference to any abuse, torture, or mistreatment administers to individualities in the under custody of law enforcement, counting incarcerations, detention center and police stations. This violence takes  colorful  conformations  similar as physical abuse like beatings, torture, and sexual violence, also cerebral abuse including  pitfalls, demotion, and the denial of  introductory rights e.g. water, medical care, and food. These types of violence inordinate affect those who are at threat, including  nonages, women, and  individualities facing charges of serious crimes. 

 transnational law, especially the Convention Against Torture( CAT),  relate as torture as any act deliberate to beget severe pain or suffering, whether physical or  internal, for purposes of  discipline, information  birth, or intimidation( UN, 1984). Despite multitudinous transnational covenants and safeguards, custodial violence remains a patient global issue, taking ongoing sweats to  ensure that law enforcement and judicial practices coordinate with  mortal rights  norms.

Legal Framework for guarding Detainee Rights

 International Legal fabrics 

 1. United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) 

 The Convention against Torture is the primary transnational instrument aimed at precluding torture and other forms of custodial abuse. It compels state parties to take preventative measures, insure responsibility for perpetrators, and give remedies for victims. Still, despite wide ratification, enforcement remains uneven, with some countries failing to apply effective mechanisms to help custodial violence (UN, 1984). 

 2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)( 1966) 

Article 7:  Prohibition of Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or demeaning Treatment. Under this composition prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or demeaning treatment or discipline, furnishing a foundation for guarding individuals from custodial abuse (United Nations, 1966). 

 3. The Nelson Mandela Rules (2015) 

 The Nelson Mandela Rules, espoused by the UN in 2015, give a comprehensive set of guidelines for the humane treatment of captures. These rules stress the significance of maintaining captures’ quality, access to healthcare, and icing that no existent is subordinated to torture or inhuman treatment. Either, the rules endorse for robust oversight mechanisms, inclusive of independent examinations of detention installations ( UN, 2015). 

 Domestic Legal Provisions

1. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS), 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code ( IPC) of 1860, includes specific vittles addressing custodial violence.

          Provisions Related to Custodial Violence in the BNS:

• Section 120( 1) Freely Causing Hurt to Extort Confession
• Section 120( 2) Freely Causing Grievous Hurt to Extort Confession
• Section 127( 8) unlawful Confinement with Intent to Extort Confession

                 2.     Prevention of Torture Act, 2017( India) 

• Section 3: description of Torture. This section defines torture as any act of physical or internal abuse intended to prize admissions, discipline, or intimidate. 
• Section 4: discipline for Torture. It prescribes discipline for the offense of torture, including a captivity judgment of over to 3 times or a fine, or both.
• Section 5: Tortures in Custody. It specifically deals with torture committed by public retainers, law enforcement officers, or others in positions of authority over the detainee.

                 3.     Indian Constitution (Fundamental Rights) 

• Article 21 Protection of life and particular liberty.
• Article 22 Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.

4. Custodial Violence- law of Criminal Procedure:

 It contains various vittles that marked the rights and protections hold by individualities who are arrested or detained, including  captures  similar as,

• Section 167: Specifies the maximum period of 24 hours which a person may be detained without being charged before a justice. 
• Section 168: Requires the police to report the arrest of a person to the nearest justice. 
• Section 172: Requires the police to maintain a journal of all apprehensions made. 
• Section 173: Mandates the completion of the disquisition without necessary detention and submission of an disquisition report to the justice.

 Judicial Responses to Custodial Violence 

  A. Role of National Courts 

 National courts are pivotal in shaping responses to custodial violence. Through corner judgments, courts have set precedents to guard detainees’ rights, indeed when law enforcement agencies are involved in abuses. 

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

 The D.K. Basu case marked a turning point in India’s judicial approach to custodial violence. The Supreme Court issued specific guidelines to help torture and custodial abuse, including authorizations for police to maintain records of apprehensions, insure detainees’ access to legal representation, and inform them of their rights. This case set important precedents for handling custodial violence in India ( D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997). 

 2. The Mathura Rape Case (1972) 

 In this ignominious case, two police officers allegedly raped a youthful woman named Mathura while she was in under custody. Although the Court acquitted the officers grounded on inadequate substantiation, the public counter reaction led to legislative changes. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 readdressed the law on rape, particularly in cases involving custodial violence, and lowered the evidentiary threshold for similar cases (Mathura Rape Case, 1979). 

3. PUCL v. Union of India (2003) :  The Supreme Court issued specific guidelines concerning extrajudicial killings  

• A FIR must be registered for every extrajudicial killings case.
• An independent disquisition must be conducted by the independent police brigades from another police station or CID to insure unprejudiced disquisition.
• The authoritative inquiry is obligatory in all cases of custodial death under policy guardianship as per the Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( CrPC).
• In case of custodial death, a detailed report must be transferred to National Human Rights Commission ( NHRC) within 48 hours of similar death. 
• The public officer set up shamefaced of abuse of power in custodial deaths or torture shall be face departmental conduct.( PUCL v. Union of India, 2003).

Despite numerous judicial interventions, alike the guidelines issued in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), custodial deaths remain a significant concern in India. The table below shows the data on custodial deaths reported by the NHRC and NCRB over recent years. The numbers reveal the alarming scale of custodial deaths, which include both police and judicial custody, highlighting the persistent challenges in curbing such violations.

Table: Custodial Deaths Data in India (NHRC and NCRB)

Year	Police Custody Deaths (NHRC)	Judicial Custody Deaths (NHRC)	Total Custodial Deaths (NHRC)	NCRB Reported Deaths in Jail	Disciplinary Actions or Compensation (NHRC)
2021–2022	100	2,152	2,252	Data not detailed	₹5,80,74,998 (compensation in 201 cases)
2020–2021	112	1,840	1,952	1,887 (1,642 natural deaths)	Compensation in 189 cases
2019–2020	136	1,584	1,720	Not available	Disciplinary action in 1 case

B. Role of International Human Rights Bodies

International bodies like the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT) and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) play a significant role in monitoring and assessing custodial conditions globally. Their periodic assessments and recommendations provide important guidance for improving national detention systems and preventing custodial violence.

 Effectiveness of Legal Safeguards in Preventing Custodial Violence

1. Lack of Accountability:
   • Impunity for Perpetrators: Weak enforcement of laws often results in little or no consequences for perpetrators of custodial violence, allowing abuse to continue in detention centers. (Amnesty International, 2017)
   • Slow Legal Processes: Delays in judicial proceedings prolong trauma for victims and prevent timely justice. The Mathura case (1979) demonstrated how slow legal processes and ingrained biases can hinder justice for custodial abuse victims. (Bantekas & Oette, 2013)

2. Barriers to Victim Access:
   • Limited Access to Legal Aid: Victims face difficulties in accessing legal recourse due to barriers like lack of legal aid, fear of retaliation, and limited awareness of their rights. (PUCL v. Union of India, 2003)
   • Recommendation: Expand legal aid and victim support services to ensure victims can report abuse without fear of retribution.

3. Impunity and Corruption:
   • Corruption and Political Interference: Corruption and political influence shield perpetrators from prosecution, undermining the effectiveness of legal safeguards. (Bantekas & Oette, 2013)
   • Recommendation: Focus on anti-corruption measures and external oversight to hold authorities accountable for custodial violence.

Recommendations for Strengthening Legal Safeguards

To strengthen the protection of detainees and combat custodial violence, the following measures are crucial:

1. Independent Monitoring Mechanisms: _o Empower independent bodies like NHRC to conduct unannounced inspections of detention centers and police stations.
   • Publish inspection reports to ensure transparency and accountability.
2. Accountability for Police and Prison Officials: o Implement reforms to train law enforcement and correctional officers on human rights.
   • Establish independent review boards to ensure proper investigation and disciplinary action for custodial violence.
3. Swift Legal Proceedings: o Introduce fast-track courts for custodial violence cases to expedite justice.
   • Encourage law enforcement to actively pursue custodial violence cases.
4. Strengthen Legal Frameworks: _o Revise laws like the Prevention of Torture Act, 2017 to close loopholes and ensure better enforcement.
   • Align national legislation with international standards such as the CAT and ICCPR.
5. Public Awareness and Sensitization: o Launch campaigns to educate the public and law enforcement on detainee rights and custodial abuse.
   • Provide human rights training for police and prison staff to reduce incidents of abuse.

Conclusion 

Despite the existence of international treaties and national legal frameworks, custodial violence continues to be a serious problem. Landmark judgments like D.K. Basu (1997) and Nilabati Behera (1993) have paved the way for legal safeguards, yet issues such as impunity, inadequate monitoring, and the lack of political will persist. To effectively combat custodial violence, stronger enforcement of legal protections, independent oversight mechanisms, and more accountable law enforcement are essential. Only through these measures can we hope to ensure that the fundamental rights of detainees are respected and that custodial violence is brought to an end.

 

References

Cases

1. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 416 (India).
2. Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1086 (India).
3. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1960 (India).
4. Selmouni v. France, 1999-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 403 (ECHR 1999).
5. PUCL v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 2363 (India).
6. Mathura Rape Case, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 185 (India). Sources
7. Mythri Devi Student, Custodial Violence and Human Rights of Prisoners in India, 1 International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management 1 (2018).
8. National Campaign Against Torture, “India: Annual Report on Torture 2019
9. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.
10. Ravi Nair, “India’s Continued Refusal to Ratify UN Convention Against Torture Lacks Substance”, (theleaflet.in, 21-11-2022).
11. Constitution of India, Art. 21.
12. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
13. Purnima Sah, Badlapur encounter: Akshay Shinde’s parents want to withdraw son’s custodial death case, The Hindu, (Feb. 6, 2025), at 1.
14. Custodial Violence: Legal Safeguards and Challenges, The Legal Quorum (Jan. 20, 2025), https://thelegalquorum.com/custodialviolence-legal-safeguards-and-challenges/.
15. Amnesty International, Torture and Ill-treatment in Custody: The Global Crisis. Amnesty.org (2017).
16. Amnesty International, Torture and Ill-treatment in Custody: The Global Crisis, Amnesty.org (2017), https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2017/06/torture-and-ill-treatment-in-custody-the-global-crisis/.
17. United Nations,Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. UN Treaty Collection (1984).
18. United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). UN Treaty Collection (1966).
19. United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). UN (2015).
20. Human Rights Watch, The State of Human Rights: Violations in Custody. hrw.org (2018).
21. Bantekas, I., & Oette., L, International Human Rights Law and Practice. Cambridge University Press (2013).
22. Custodial Torture in India: Intersection of Criminal Law and Constitutional Rights, SCC Times (Mar. 23, 2024), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/03/23/custodial-torture-in-india-intersection-of-criminal-law-and-constitutional-rights/.
23. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 196.
24. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 187.
25. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 43(3).
26. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
27. Sec 330, Indian Penal Code, 1860
28. 278LS(content).p65, (Aug. 11, 2023), https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/2023/Bharatiya_Nyaya_Sanhita%2C_2023.
29. Ministry of Home Affairs (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.