Custodial Violence in India: Legal Safeguards and Judicial Responses

Abstract

Custodial violence remains one of the most severe human rights violations in India, involving torture, abuse, and deaths of individuals in police or judicial custody. Despite constitutional protections and legal safeguards, incidents of custodial violence persist due to systemic failures, inadequate accountability mechanisms, and delayed justice. This article examines the legal framework designed to prevent custodial violence, including constitutional provisions, statutory laws, and landmark judicial rulings. It analyses the challenges in enforcement and suggests comprehensive reforms to strengthen accountability and uphold human dignity in custodial settings.

Introduction

Custodial violence represents a fundamental breach of human rights principles and constitutional guarantees in India’s legal system. This persistent issue undermines the rule of law and erodes public trust in law enforcement institutions. Custodial violence encompasses physical and psychological abuse that can culminate in loss of life, creating an urgent need for robust legal frameworks, stringent law enforcement protocols, and comprehensive accountability mechanisms.

The prevalence of custodial violence reflects deeper systemic issues within India’s criminal justice system, including inadequate training, insufficient oversight, and a culture of impunity that shields perpetrators from consequences.

Understanding Custodial Violence

Definition and Scope

While Indian law does not provide a precise definition of “custody,” the term generally encompasses the act of holding or keeping a person under control or supervision by law enforcement or judicial authorities.

Custodial violence can be defined as: “State-inflicted harm, including physical or psychological abuse, torture, and coercive interrogation, imposed on individuals in state custody, including those detained by police, prison officials, or other law enforcement authorities.”

Primary Manifestations

Custodial violence in India manifests primarily through:

1. Physical torture during police interrogations
2. Inhuman treatment in judicial custody
3. Systematic neglect in detention facilities

The persistence of custodial violence can be attributed to inadequate enforcement of existing laws, widespread legal ignorance among the population, and insufficient societal outrage regarding these violations. The implicit support often extended to law enforcement agencies emboldens officers to exercise excessive power over detainees.

The Supreme Court established in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal that custodial violence violates Article 21’s guarantee of the “right to life with human dignity.” Despite this constitutional mandate, the National Human Rights Commission recorded 1,070 custodial deaths between 2020-2022, revealing significant implementation challenges.

Forms of Custodial Violence

Custodial violence encompasses various forms of abuse perpetrated by law enforcement against individuals in their custody, manifesting physically, psychologically, and sexually with devastating consequences.

Physical Torture

Physical torture involves the intentional infliction of bodily harm through:

• Beating, burning, and suspension techniques
• Denial of essential necessities including food, water, and sanitation
• Sleep deprivation, forced exercise, and denial of medical assistance

Such abuse creates fear of imminent death and, in extreme cases, results in actual fatalities.

Psychological Abuse

Psychological abuse employs coercive tactics to extract forced confessions through:

• Threats against family members or false accusations
• Prolonged detention without trial and public defamation
• Mental intimidation designed to break psychological resistance

These actions inflict significant mental trauma, potentially leading to false confessions, post-traumatic stress disorder, and long-term personality changes.

Sexual Abuse

Sexual abuse in custody represents a particularly heinous violation affecting both women and men, including:

• Humiliating strip searches, forced nudity, and sexual coercion
• Denial of menstrual hygiene products and sexual assault
• Threats of sexual violence and degrading comments about gender identity

Custodial rape constitutes an especially grave offence, highlighting the urgent need for reform and accountability within law enforcement agencies.

Legal Safeguards Against Custodial Violence

A. Constitutional Provisions

Article 20(3) prohibits self-incrimination, ensuring that no accused person can be compelled to testify against themselves.

Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which courts have interpreted to include protection from torture and inhuman treatment.

Article 22 provides safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention, ensuring the right to legal representation and production before a magistrate within 24 hours.

B. Statutory Protections

Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Sections 330 & 331: Criminalise voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confessions
• Section 348: Punishes wrongful confinement for extortion
• Sections 302 & 304: Address culpable homicide and murder in custodial death cases

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):

• Sections 41 & 49: Regulate arrest procedures to prevent arbitrary detention
• Section 54: Mandates medical examination of arrested persons to document injuries
• Section 176: Requires magisterial inquiry in custodial death cases

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993: Establishes the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) to investigate custodial violence cases.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 24-27 bar confessions obtained under coercion from being admissible in court.

C. International Commitments

India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) but has not ratified it, delaying the enactment of comprehensive anti-torture legislation.

Judicial Responses

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

Facts: The case arose from a writ petition filed by Advocate D.K. Basu addressing widespread custodial torture and deaths in West Bengal. Multiple custodial death cases prompted judicial intervention to prevent further abuse and ensure detainee safety.

Judgment: The Supreme Court established specific guidelines to prevent custodial torture:

1. Mandatory disclosure of arrest information to family members
2. Right to legal counsel and medical examination
3. Prohibition of physical and psychological torture
4. Documentation requirements for all arrests and detentions

These guidelines created binding obligations for law enforcement agencies nationwide.

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)

Facts: The case concerned Suman Behera’s death while in police custody. Nilabati Behera, the victim’s mother, alleged that her son died due to physical and psychological abuse by police officers.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that custodial death violates the fundamental right to life under Article 21, establishing state liability for compensation. The court recognised the state’s duty to provide safe custody conditions and awarded damages to the petitioner. The judgment emphasised the need for enhanced accountability and transparency in law enforcement operations.

Systemic Challenges and Root Causes

The persistence of custodial violence stems from multiple systemic factors within India’s criminal justice system. Law enforcement agencies often operate under immense pressure to solve cases quickly, leading to the adoption of shortcuts that include coercive interrogation techniques.

Financial incentives, inadequate training, and a culture that prioritises results over due process contribute to these violations. The complicity of higher authorities, who may conceal or minimise such transgressions, perpetuates a cycle of impunity.

Furthermore, insufficient public awareness of legal rights and limited access to legal representation leave many victims without recourse, enabling the continuation of abusive practices.

Conclusion

Custodial violence continues to plague India’s criminal justice system despite robust constitutional protections and statutory safeguards. The gap between legal provisions and ground realities requires immediate and comprehensive intervention.

Addressing this crisis requires a three-pronged approach:

Enhanced Implementation: Strengthening existing legal safeguards through better training, monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms.

Institutional Accountability: Establishing independent oversight bodies with sufficient power to investigate, prosecute, and punish violations effectively.

Victim Support Systems: Creating comprehensive rehabilitation programs for survivors and compensation mechanisms for families of victims.

Systemic Reform: Implementing police reforms that emphasise human rights training, psychological evaluation, and community policing approaches.

Only through sustained commitment to these reforms can India bridge the gap between its constitutional ideals and the harsh realities faced by individuals in custody. The protection of human dignity in custodial settings is not merely a legal obligation but a fundamental measure of a just society.

References

1. National Human Rights Commission, Annual Report 2021-22 45 (2022)
2. Law Commission of India, Report No. 273 on Implementation of UNCAT (2017)
3. Prison Statistics India 2021, National Crime Records Bureau 89 (2022)
4. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416
5. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960
6. NHRC, Custodial Deaths in India: A Status Report 12 (2023)
7. INDIA CONST. art. 20, cl. 3
8. Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608
9. INDIA CONST. art. 22
10. Indian Penal Code §§ 330, 331, 348, 302, 304 (1860)
11. Code of Criminal Procedure §§ 41, 49, 54, 176 (1973)
12. Protection of Human Rights Act (No. 10 of 1994)
13. Indian Evidence Act §§ 24-27 (1872)