Custodial Violence in India: Legal Safeguards and Judicial Responses

Abstract

Custodial violence remains a persistent challenge to the rule of law and human dignity in India. Despite constitutional guarantees and statutory frameworks, incidents of torture and deaths in custody continue to surface. This article examines the concept and dimensions of custodial violence in India, explores existing legal safeguards, and analyses judicial responses aimed at curbing such violations. It also sheds light on the role of national and international legal standards and proposes recommendations for a more robust and accountable legal framework.

Introduction

Custodial violence, encompassing torture, assault, and death in police or judicial custody, strikes at the heart of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Although India is a democratic republic founded on the rule of law, the persistent cases of brutality by law enforcement agencies expose deep-rooted structural issues within the criminal justice system. This paper delves into the systemic causes, legislative efforts, judicial interventions, and reforms needed to combat custodial violence. A tragic and widely publicised instance of custodial violence was the case of the father-son duo, P. Jayaraj and J. Bennicks, from Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu, who were arrested for allegedly keeping their mobile accessories shop open past lockdown hours during the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2020. They died within days of each other due to severe injuries allegedly inflicted in police custody. Their deaths sparked outrage across the nation and reignited conversations around police brutality and accountability.  This paper examines the systemic causes, legislative efforts, judicial interventions, and reforms necessary to combat custodial violence. It aims to recommend practical steps rooted in constitutional morality, international best practices, and robust oversight.

Concept and Forms of Custodial Violence

Custodial violence refers to violence perpetrated by law enforcement authorities against individuals under their custody, either during interrogation or while serving judicial custody. It includes:

• Physical Torture: Beatings, electric shocks, or other methods causing physical harm.
• Mental Torture: Intimidation, threats, humiliation, and prolonged solitary confinement.
• Sexual Abuse: Harassment or assault during custody, often targeting vulnerable individuals.
• Custodial Death: The ultimate form of custodial violence resulting from torture, negligence, or unnatural causes.

These practices violate the basic tenets of a fair criminal justice system and have long-term psychological and social consequences for victims and their families.

According to the Crime in India 2022 report published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), a total of 175 custodial deaths were reported across India. Of these, 143 occurred in judicial custody, while 32 took place in police custody. Notably, Gujarat recorded the highest number of custodial deaths that year. This data reflects the continued prevalence of custodial violence despite legal safeguards and judicial oversight mechanisms.[1]

Constitutional and Statutory Safeguards

Constitutional and Statutory Safeguards: India’s Constitution and criminal laws provide several safeguards to protect individuals from custodial abuse:

• Article 20(3): Protects against self-incrimination.
• Article 21: Ensures every individual’s right to life and liberty, safeguarding them from arbitrary interference.
• Article 22: Provides for the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and legal representation.

Statutory protections include provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973:

• Section 41: Empowers police to arrest without a warrant in certain conditions, but imposes restrictions to prevent arbitrary arrests.
• Section 41B: Mandates identification of arresting officers and preparation of an arrest memo.
• Section 46: Restricts the use of force during arrest.
• Section 50: Obliges police to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest and the right to bail.

These provisions aim to balance police powers with individual freedoms and to prevent custodial excesses. Yet, without consistent implementation and oversight, these safeguards often fail to provide real protection.

Judicial Responses

The Indian judiciary has played a significant role in addressing custodial violence. Several landmark judgments have established procedural guidelines and emphasized accountability:

In D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court laid down detailed procedural safeguards to prevent custodial torture and deaths. These include preparing arrest memos, medical examinations, and informing relatives. The judgment recognised that custodial violence infringes upon Article 21 and mandated compliance with human rights during arrest and detention.[2]

In Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa, the Court reinforced that the state bears responsibility for custodial deaths and introduced the concept of constitutional compensation. The Court granted compensation to the mother of a young man who died in police custody, affirming the principle that a public law remedy is necessary in cases of fundamental rights violations.[3]

In Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra, the Court stressed the need for legal aid and humane treatment of women prisoners. It directed periodic visits by legal aid advocates to prisons and highlighted the vulnerability of women in custody.[4]

In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasized the urgency of police reforms and accountability mechanisms. It called for the implementation of recommendations made by expert committees to insulate police investigations from political interference.[5]

The scope of Article 21 was expanded in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, where the Court held that the procedure affecting life and liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. This case laid the foundation for future interpretations of due process and protection from state excesses.[6]

In Paramvir Singh Saini v Baljit Singh, the Court directed the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations to enhance transparency and curb abuse. It mandated that every interrogation room and police station be equipped with recording systems to prevent human rights violations.[7]

These decisions reflect the judiciary’s proactive approach in safeguarding individual rights and dignity within the criminal justice system.  Courts have not only interpreted the Constitution but have also filled legislative gaps through binding guidelines.

Role of NHRC and Other Institutions

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) monitors human rights violations, including custodial violence. It has issued guidelines for custodial deaths and maintains a record of complaints. The NHRC mandates that all custodial deaths be reported within 24 hours and conducts inquiries, yet its recommendations are not binding. It has also emphasised the need for accountability by recommending departmental action and prosecution in proven cases.  Other institutions, including state human rights commissions, prison monitoring boards, and legal aid authorities, also play a crucial role in protecting detainees. However, coordination among these bodies is often lacking, and bureaucratic delays weaken their effectiveness.  There is also a dire need for strengthening institutional autonomy and independence.

International Legal Framework

India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT), yet it has not ratified it. International law mandates humane treatment of prisoners and detainees. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a party, reinforces the prohibition of torture under Article 7.

Other countries have implemented stronger safeguards:

• United Kingdom: Ratified the UNCAT and has an Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) to investigate complaints.
• United States: Enforces the Civil Rights Act and allows federal prosecution of police misconduct.
• Germany: Mandates audio-video recording of all interrogations and has efficient complaint redressal systems.

India can draw lessons from these practices to strengthen its custodial framework, especially by empowering independent oversight and prioritising victim rights.  Comparative analysis reveals that where oversight is independent and well-resourced, the incidence of custodial abuse declines significantly.

Challenges and Recommendations

Despite judicial activism and statutory protections, custodial violence persists due to:

• Lack of accountability and impunity.
• Absence of independent investigation agencies.
• Delayed judicial proceedings.
• Fear of retaliation among victims.
• Inadequate training of police personnel.
• Poor prison conditions and lack of medical facilities.

Recommendations:

• Ratify the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and pass anti-torture legislation.

• Implement police reform guidelines as laid down in Prakash Singh v Union of India, including the separation of law and order from investigation.
• Install CCTV cameras in all police stations and prisons, and ensure regular monitoring by independent bodies.
• Conduct surprise inspections by non-official visitors to detention centres.
• Mandate audio-visual recording of all custodial interrogations.
• Train police personnel in human rights and ethical law enforcement.
• Implement the Law Commission of India’s 273rd Report, which recommends the enactment of a specific law against torture, a mechanism for compensation, and prosecution.

• Strengthen the NHRC’s enforcement powers to ensure that its recommendations are binding and implemented effectively.
• Ensure witness protection and create confidential reporting mechanisms to encourage victims and families to come forward.
• Develop a national database on custodial deaths and police misconduct, accessible to the public for transparency and research.
• Include custodial violence awareness in school curricula and conduct community-level sensitisation programs to create broader awareness about rights in custody.

Conclusion

Custodial violence reflects a deep disconnect between the rule of law and its enforcement. It undermines public trust in the justice system and compromises the constitutional mandate of equality and dignity. While the judiciary has taken commendable steps to uphold human dignity, systemic reforms, strict implementation, and political will are essential to eradicate the menace of torture and deaths in custody.  Strengthening institutional accountability, adhering to international norms, and prioritising the rights of individuals in custody must form the core of a just criminal justice system.

 

 

References

[1] National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2022 (Ministry of Home Affairs 2023) https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2023-12/dc0ba053-a1f0-4e6a-a5f8-e7668ddd2249/NCRB_STATS.pdf accessed 8 April 2025.

[2] D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416.

[3] Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746.

[4] Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra (1983) 2 SCC 96.

[5] People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 436.

[6] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.

[7] Paramvir Singh Saini v Baljit Singh (2021) 1 SCC 184.