Custodial Violence in India: Legal Safeguards and Judicial Responses

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
– Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Introduction

Custodial violence represents one of the most serious challenges to human rights and the rule of law in India’s criminal justice system. While popular media often portrays aggressive police interrogation methods as necessary tools for law enforcement, the reality of custodial violence extends far beyond cinematic representation to constitute grave violations of constitutional rights and human dignity.

According to legal definitions, ‘violence’ encompasses behaviour that inflicts physical harm or damage with significant force, while ‘custody’ refers to the legal responsibility or authority to detain someone. Under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), custody encompasses both police custody and judicial custody. Custodial violence, therefore, refers to abuse, torture, or violence inflicted upon individuals while in the custody of law enforcement authorities.

This violence manifests in various forms, ranging from verbal abuse and psychological torment to severe physical beatings, sexual assault, and death. The persistence of custodial violence stems from multiple factors including lack of accountability, pressure for expedited case resolution, and inadequate legal enforcement mechanisms.

Data from the National Human Rights Commission, as reported by the Ministry of Home Affairs, reveals alarming statistics: custodial deaths numbered 1,840 in 2020-21, 1,584 in 2019-20, 1,797 in 2018-19, 1,636 in 2017-18, and 1,616 in 2016-17. Police custody deaths specifically stood at 100 in 2020-21, 112 in 2019-20, 136 in 2018-19, 146 in 2017-18, and 145 in 2016-17.

In a democratic society, the phenomenon of law enforcement officers violating the very laws they are sworn to uphold undermines public trust and calls into question the credibility of the entire justice system. Preventing custodial violence is therefore paramount to upholding fundamental human rights, ensuring the rule of law, and maintaining public confidence in criminal justice institutions.

Legal Safeguards Against Custodial Violence

Indian lawmakers have recognised the critical importance of protecting citizens’ rights and preventing custodial violence. The legal framework incorporates multiple layers of protection, imposing reasonable restrictions on authority while safeguarding individual rights.

A. Constitutional Provisions

Article 20(3) – Protection Against Self-Incrimination Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution provides that “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This provision prevents authorities from compelling individuals to testify against themselves, creating a fundamental safeguard against coercive interrogation practices.

Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty This article states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The scope of Article 21 extends beyond citizens to include all individuals, including those charged with offenses. The landmark case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) transformed this provision by requiring that procedures be not merely established by law but also just, fair, and reasonable.

Article 22 – Protection Against Arrest and Detention Article 22 mandates that arrested individuals must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, excluding travel time. The arrested person must be informed about the grounds for arrest and granted access to legal counsel of their choice. No person may be detained beyond this period without magisterial authority.

B. Statutory Provisions

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS)

Section 106 – Causing Death by Negligence: This section provides that anyone causing death through rash or negligent acts not amounting to culpable homicide shall face imprisonment of up to five years and be liable for fines.

Section 120 – Voluntarily Causing Hurt to Extort Confession: This provision criminalises the voluntary infliction of hurt to extract confessions or information, prescribing imprisonment of up to seven years plus fines for public servants or individuals engaging in such conduct.

Section 198 – Public Servant Disobeying Law: This section specifically addresses public servants who knowingly disobey legal directions in their official capacity, intending to cause injury to any person, prescribing punishment through simple imprisonment, fines, or both.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS)

Section 47: Ensures arrested persons’ right to be informed of arrest grounds and bail entitlements.

Section 100 – Search for Wrongfully Confined Persons: Authorises magistrates to issue search warrants when they believe someone is unlawfully confined, requiring immediate production before the magistrate upon discovery.

Section 182 – Prohibition of Inducements: Explicitly prohibits police officers from using inducements, threats, or promises to extract statements, allowing only voluntary statements during investigations.

Section 196 – Magisterial Inquiry into Custodial Deaths: Mandates judicial magistrates to investigate deaths, disappearances, or alleged rapes occurring in police or authorised custody, including medical examination requirements.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA)

Section 22: Renders confessions made under inducement, threat, or coercion inadmissible in criminal proceedings.

Section 23: Prohibits the admission of confessions made to police officers, requiring statements to be made before magistrates for admissibility.

Police Act, 1861 Section 29: Imposes penalties including fines and imprisonment on police personnel who inflict violence on individuals in their custody.

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 This Act established the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) to monitor human rights violations, including custodial violence. The NHRC has developed comprehensive guidelines for magisterial inquiries in custody deaths, requiring examination and verification of inquest reports, post-mortem reports, and viscera analysis reports.

Judicial Response to Custodial Violence

Indian jurisprudence has evolved significantly in addressing custodial violence through landmark judicial pronouncements that have established important precedents and protective guidelines.

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)

Facts: Suman Behera, the petitioner’s son, was arrested by police and found dead on railway tracks with multiple injuries the following day. While police claimed he had escaped from the station, the victim’s family alleged custodial violence.

Judgment: The Supreme Court determined that injuries were inflicted while the victim was in custody, establishing custodial violence. The Court awarded compensation of ₹1,55,000 and established that the state, rather than individual police officers, bears responsibility for providing compensation in custodial violence cases. This decision established the principle of state liability for human rights violations occurring in custody.

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

This landmark case prompted the Supreme Court to establish comprehensive guidelines for arrest and detention procedures:

1. Identification Requirements: Police officers must wear clear, visible identification and name tags with designations during arrests and interrogations.
2. Documentation: Officers must prepare arrest memos at the time of arrest, maintaining detailed records of all procedures.
3. Notification Rights: Arrested persons have the right to inform family members, friends, or relatives about their arrest, with police required to notify relatives within 8-12 hours.
4. Awareness of Rights: Arrested persons must be informed of their legal rights upon detention.
5. Medical Examination: Arrestees must undergo medical examination documenting any injuries, with follow-up examinations every 48 hours during custody.
6. Legal Representation: Arrested persons have the right to meet with advocates during interrogation or questioning.
7. Magistrate Notification: All arrest documents must be sent to magistrates for official records.
8. Control Room Communication: Arrest information and custody location must be communicated to control rooms within 12 hours.

These guidelines have become binding precedent for law enforcement agencies nationwide.

Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar (1983)

Facts: Rudul Shah was illegally detained for over 14 years despite being acquitted by a court, prompting a writ petition by his relatives challenging the unconstitutional detention.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held the detention unconstitutional and issued a writ of habeas corpus for immediate release. The Court emphasised that violations of fundamental liberty rights by the state entitle individuals to compensation. The Government of Bihar was ordered to pay ₹30,000 in addition to ₹5,000 already provided, establishing precedent for compensation in cases of illegal detention.

Recommendations to Address Custodial Violence

To effectively combat custodial violence in India, the following comprehensive measures should be implemented:

Institutional Reforms:

• Establish independent investigative bodies with sufficient authority and resources to probe custodial violence cases
• Create specialised courts for expedited trials of custodial violence cases to ensure timely justice
• Implement mandatory psychological evaluation and human rights training for all law enforcement personnel

Technological Solutions:

• Install body cameras and CCTV systems in all police stations and detention facilities with real-time monitoring capabilities
• Develop centralised databases for tracking arrest records and custody conditions
• Implement digital documentation systems to prevent manipulation of arrest records

Legal and Procedural Enhancements:

• Strengthen witness protection programs for those reporting custodial violence
• Establish victim compensation funds with streamlined disbursement procedures
• Create mandatory reporting mechanisms for medical personnel treating potential torture victims

Public Awareness and Education:

• Conduct comprehensive legal awareness programs educating citizens about their rights and available remedies
• Develop community policing initiatives to improve police-public relations
• Establish accessible complaint mechanisms for reporting custodial violence incidents

Accountability Mechanisms:

• Implement regular audits of police stations and detention facilities
• Create performance evaluation criteria that include human rights compliance
• Establish clear disciplinary procedures for officers involved in custodial violence

Conclusion

Custodial violence remains one of the gravest human rights violations in contemporary India, representing a fundamental challenge to the principles of justice, human dignity, and the rule of law. While India’s legal framework provides robust constitutional and statutory safeguards, and judicial pronouncements have established important protective guidelines, implementation remains inadequate.

The persistence of custodial violence undermines public confidence in law enforcement and the broader criminal justice system. Addressing this crisis requires sustained commitment from all stakeholders: legislative bodies must strengthen existing laws and close implementation gaps; the executive must ensure proper training and accountability mechanisms; the judiciary must continue developing protective jurisprudence; and civil society must maintain vigilance in monitoring and reporting violations.

Only through comprehensive reform encompassing institutional change, technological innovation, enhanced accountability, and sustained public engagement can India effectively eliminate custodial violence and ensure that the constitutional promise of life and liberty with dignity becomes reality for all citizens. The fight against custodial violence is ultimately a fight for the soul of India’s democracy and its commitment to human rights.

References

1. National Human Rights Commission, Annual Report on Custodial Deaths (2022)
2. Ministry of Home Affairs, Statistics on Custodial Violence 2016-2021
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
4. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960
5. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416
6. Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141
7. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
8. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
9. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
10. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
11. Pandey, J.N., Constitutional Law of India (2023 ed.)