Published on 25th March 2025
Authored By: Pratyush Pathak
Shambhunath Institute of Law
ABSTRACT
Custodial violence refers to any form of physical or psychological abuse inflicted on individuals while they are in the custody of law enforcement agencies. Despite being a violation of human rights, custodial violence remains prevalent in many countries. This article examines the legal safeguards available to individuals in custody, as well as the judicial responses to instances of custodial abuse. Through an analysis of national and international legal frameworks, case law, and human rights standards, the article aims to highlight the gaps and challenges in addressing custodial violence, with recommendations for strengthening legal safeguards and judicial accountability.
INTRODUCTION
Custodial violence remains a persistent issue worldwide, often resulting from the abuse of power by law enforcement personnel against individuals in their custody. Whether in police stations, prisons, or other places of detention, victims of custodial violence suffer physical harm, mental anguish, or even death. This violation undermines the rule of law and the fundamental rights guaranteed by constitutions and international human rights conventions. Legal safeguards are crucial to prevent custodial violence, and judicial responses play a significant role in addressing the consequences of such abuse.
CONCEPT OF CUSTODIAL CONCEPT
Custodial violence encompasses various forms of abuse, including physical torture, sexual violence, threats, and deprivation of basic human rights. It often takes place during interrogations, detention, or imprisonment and is typically perpetrated by law enforcement officers, including police, prison officials, and other state agents. In most cases, the victims of custodial violence are marginalized groups, including underprivileged individuals, ethnic minorities, or political dissidents.
International human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have reported widespread cases of custodial violence. The United Nations has also emphasized the need for strict measures to prevent torture and ill-treatment of individuals in custody.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK: NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SAFEGUARDS
Several legal frameworks provide safeguards against custodial violence. These include constitutional protections, domestic laws, and international conventions that ensure the protection of individuals from torture and ill-treatment.
Constitutional Safeguards
In many democratic countries, the constitution provides a foundation for human rights protection. For instance, in India, Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes protection against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Similarly, Article 20 ensures protection from arbitrary arrest and detention.
The Indian Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, interpreted these provisions to prohibit custodial violence. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Court laid down detailed guidelines to prevent custodial torture, including the mandatory recording of arrest, informing relatives of the arrest, and ensuring medical examination of detainees.
International Conventions
On the international stage, the United Nations has adopted several conventions to prevent custodial violence. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), 1984, obligates state parties to prevent and punish acts of torture. Article 2 of the Convention specifically requires that each state party take effective measures to prevent acts of torture, including the establishment of laws to penalize perpetrators.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, also provides protections against torture under Article 7, which prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. These international conventions have been ratified by a large number of countries, which are bound to align their domestic laws with these standards.
JUDICIAL RESPONSE TO CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE
The judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability for custodial violence. Courts in many countries have responded proactively to instances of custodial abuse, holding perpetrators accountable and issuing landmark judgments.
Indian Judiciary’s Response
In India, the judiciary has played a pivotal role in addressing custodial violence. In the landmark case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of procedural safeguards to prevent custodial torture. The Court laid down 11 directives to be followed by law enforcement officers during arrest, including informing the arrested person of their rights, providing access to a lawyer, and ensuring a medical examination.
Another significant case is Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), where the Court ruled that using narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain-mapping techniques during interrogations violated the constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Additionally, in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court issued guidelines for police reforms to ensure transparency, accountability, and the protection of human rights, aiming to reduce custodial violence.
Judicial Mechanisms in Other Countries
Judicial mechanisms to address custodial violence are also in place in other jurisdictions. In the United States, the Miranda v. Arizona case (1966) established that individuals in police custody must be informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, to safeguard against coerced confessions and custodial abuse.
In the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights has delivered several judgments concerning custodial violence. In Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978), the Court held that ill-treatment of detainees during interrogation violated the European Convention on Human Rights.
CHALLENGES IN ADDRESSING CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE
Despite the availability of legal safeguards, custodial violence continues to be a major concern. Several factors contribute to the persistence of this issue:
Lack of Accountability
One of the most significant challenges in addressing custodial violence is the lack of accountability. Law enforcement personnel, including police officers and prison guards, often act with impunity, and their actions go unpunished. In many cases, victims of custodial violence are reluctant to report the abuse due to fear of retaliation, distrust of the legal system, or lack of awareness of their rights.
Inadequate Implementation of Legal Safeguards
While legal frameworks exist, they are often poorly implemented. Many police stations and prisons do not follow the procedural safeguards laid down by the judiciary, such as recording arrests or providing timely medical examinations. In addition, there is often a lack of adequate training for law enforcement personnel regarding human rights and the prevention of custodial abuse.
Delay in Judicial Proceedings
Judicial responses, although often robust, are often delayed due to the slow pace of legal proceedings. The backlog of cases in courts means that victims of custodial violence may not receive timely justice. This delay in proceedings can also result in the destruction of evidence and the undermining of cases against perpetrators.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRENGTHING LEGAL SAFEGUARDS
To address custodial violence effectively, several measures need to be adopted:
Strengthening Oversight Mechanisms
Independent oversight bodies, such as Human Rights Commissions, should be empowered to investigate allegations of custodial abuse. These bodies should have the authority to conduct regular inspections of detention facilities and ensure compliance with human rights standards.
Enhanced Training and Sensitization
Law enforcement personnel should undergo regular training on human rights, legal standards, and the prevention of custodial violence. Training programs should focus on respecting the dignity and rights of detainees, including proper interrogation methods that comply with international standards.
Expediting Judicial Processes
To ensure that victims of custodial violence receive timely justice, the judicial system must expedite cases involving custodial abuse. Special fast-track courts could be established to handle such cases and ensure prompt action.
Public Awareness Campaigns
Public awareness campaigns should be launched to educate citizens about their rights during detention. This would empower individuals to seek legal remedies if they face custodial abuse and increase public pressure on law enforcement agencies to uphold human rights.
CONCLUSION
Custodial violence remains a significant human rights violation, with profound implications for the victims and society at large. While legal safeguards exist, their enforcement remains a challenge due to issues of accountability, implementation, and delays in judicial processes. A concerted effort by the judiciary, law enforcement agencies, and civil society is essential to eliminate custodial violence. Strengthening legal safeguards, improving the accountability of law enforcement, and ensuring timely judicial responses are crucial steps toward protecting the rights of individuals in custody.
REFERENCES
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
- Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 (India).
- Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1 (India).
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
- Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978) 2 EHRR 25.
- United Nations, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted 10 December 1984.
- International Agreement on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966.
