Name : PAMULA TANUJA
COLLEGE: SRI PADMAVATI MAHILA VISVAVIDYALAYAM
Abstract
One of the most serious infringements upon human rights and constitutional safeguards in a democratic society is custodial death, which happens when a person is under the protection of judicial or law enforcement officials. Cases of torture, neglect, and extrajudicial violence continue to occur in custodial environments, raising serious questions regarding the state’s accountability and responsibility, even with explicit constitutional protections and legal procedures. Using both a constitutional perspective and a human rights framework, this paper offers a critical assessment of the custodial death issue in India. It examines significant clauses of the Indian Constitution, notably Articles 21 and 22, as well as important judicial rulings that have influenced the laws governing state accountability. Additionally, it evaluates India’s adherence to international human rights standards, such as its position on the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and other international treaties.
This highlights the limitations of existing protections and oversight mechanisms, such as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), by examining institutional flaws, enforcement failures, and legislative gaps. It makes the case for the pressing need for legislative reform, police accountability, and structural safeguards through the discussion of important case law, national statistics, and procedural errors. The article concludes with a list of practical measures intended to curb custodial abuse and strengthen the rule of law, stressing that meaningful accountability is crucial for the legitimacy of state institutions in a constitutional democracy as well as for justice to the victims.
Introduction
The state has the ultimate duty in a constitutional democracy to safeguard the rights, dignity, and safety of all citizens, including those under its jurisdiction. However, custodial deaths whether in police lockups, judicial prisons, or during interrogation still happen in India with alarming frequency. These deaths are frequently the consequence of medical negligence, torture, inhumane treatment, or intentional extrajudicial acts. Reality, on the other hand, depicts a distinct scenario characterized by impunity, opacity, and systemic breakdown, even if the law stipulates that persons in detention be under the state’s care and protection.
Custodial deaths not only violate fundamental rights but also undermine public confidence in the judicial system. India experiences hundreds of such events every year, according to reports from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). Because of legal and procedural loopholes that protect offenders, many of these instances go unpunished. Perpetrators are frequently members of law enforcement organizations and are not held accountable. In these cases, the state’s function shifts from one of neglect to one of deliberate participation or apathy.
Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution establish a robust framework for safeguarding life and individual freedom. Recognizing the principle that a state must be held accountable when it fails to protect those under its direct control, the judiciary has often intervened to establish protections against custodial torture. India has ratified numerous international human rights accords, but important agreements such as the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) have yet to be ratified, indicating a divide between dedication and implementation.
The objective of this piece is to analyze the problem of fatalities in custody from the perspective of human rights and the constitution. It examines the legislative environment, emphasizes judicial responses, and assesses current institutional frameworks, offering valuable reforms to ensure real accountability and the preservation of human dignity.
Legal jagron
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, is severely violated by deaths that occur while a person is in judicial or police custody. These deaths, which are often caused by torture, inhumane behavior, or deliberate neglect, are a breach of the state’s affirmative obligation to safeguard people within its jurisdiction. Despite the procedural safeguards provided by the Criminal Procedure Code and the legal standards established in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, accountability is still hampered by systemic failures, a lack of independent oversight, and legal immunities granted by Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code . These events not only raise concerns about state liability under the theory of constitutional tort, but also breach India’s international obligations under the UDHR and the ICCPR. The ongoing large number of custodial murders, coupled with poor conviction rates, emphasizes the urgent necessity for institutional reform and better implementation of human rights protections.
The Constitutional Framework and State Responsibility
The Indian Constitution prioritizes the protection of individual rights and limits the use of state power. When a person is taken into custody, the state is solely accountable for their life, safety, and dignity. Thus, custodial fatalities constitute a serious breach of constitutional responsibilities in addition to being human rights violations. Several fundamental clauses in the Constitution directly address the rights of individuals in detention and the responsibilities of the government.
Article 21 safeguards the right to life and individual freedom.
No one may be stripped of their life or liberty without due process of law, as required by Article 21. This work assures everyone the right to live with dignity, including safeguards against torture, abuse, and degrading treatment. A person’s passing while in jail is often considered a clear breach of Article 21, especially if the cause of death is abuse or neglect. The state is required by law to protect the health, safety, and equitable treatment of all those in its care.
Article 22: Defense Against Unjustified Arrest
According to Article 22, the primary precautions must be taken during an arrest.
The right to understand the basis for one’s arrest.
The right to ask a lawyer for counsel.
The right to be brought before a judge in less than 24 hours. These procedural rights are crucial for preventing illegal incarceration and mistreatment in custody. Ignoring these protections can lead to unchecked authority, abuse, and, in the worst cases, death while incarcerated.
The ability to initiate legal proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. Anyone is permitted to appeal directly to the Supreme Court for the protection of their fundamental rights, as stated in Article 32.
Article 226 grants the High Courts similar power, but with a wider scope that encompasses legal violations.
By employing constitutional writs such as habeas corpus to dispute unlawful imprisonment or abuse of authority, these articles grant victims of custodial violence or their families the ability to seek justice.
The State’s Legal Responsibilities While in Custody
As soon as a person is taken into custody, the state assumes full responsibility for their well-being. The state is required by the constitution to answer for any harm, injury, or death that occurs while a person is in custody. The responsible officer can be penalized, but the entire state can also be held accountable for failing to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens in its care.
From this, the notion of constitutional tort originates, recognizing that the violation of fundamental rights, notably by state officials, merits not just legal acknowledgment but also compensation as a public law solution.
Fundamental Tenets of National Policy
Even though they are not legally binding in court, the Directive Principles embody the ideals that should direct the government.
In Article 39A, the state is urged to provide free legal assistance and ensure that everyone receives justice.
According to Article 41, help should be given to individuals who are at risk or in need, such as those in jail.
Article 42 mandates fair treatment and humane conditions, which may apply to prisoners and detainees.
These clauses highlight the state’s broader moral duty to treat all citizens with fairness and respect, even those who have been taken into custody or are currently facing charges.
Other Laws Governing Custodial Deaths in India
India has a number of legal frameworks and constitutional and judicial viewpoints to handle the grave human rights issue of custodial killings. The judicial system has established standards for dealing with violations of the constitutional rights to life and liberty, but the legislative context remains crucial for establishing accountability measures. This extensive study focuses on the key legislation and legal provisions that are not included in the Constitution but address custodial fatalities, their extent, and the limitations that hinder their effective enforcement.
Indian Penal Code of 1860 (IPC)
India’s criminal law is primarily structured under the IPC. It includes criminal measures to address murder and violence that take place while in custody, even if it does not explicitly define “custodial torture” or “custodial death”:
The penalty for killing someone is covered in Section 302. This legislation applies if it can be proven that a custodial death was caused by a police officer or public official committing intentional murder. It mandates either the death penalty or life imprisonment.
Section 304. An abominable murder that does not qualify as murder This section applies when the action that leads to death is reckless or negligent but not done with the purpose to cause it.
Sections 330 and 331: Employing Voluntary Harm or Serious Harm to Get a Confession These sections are crucial in cases of custodial torture, when the police use physical injury to elicit confessions or data.
Sections 342 through 348 of Wrongful Confinement address various crimes pertaining to unlawful detention and excessive imprisonment beyond legitimate limitations.
Section 376(2)(b), Custodial Rape This clause focuses on sexual assault by police or other custodial authorities, highlighting the necessity of gender-sensitive accountability in custody settings. These chapters, while significant, are often underutilized due to substandard investigation practices, a lack of independent investigation, and a systematic prejudice in favor of law enforcement personnel.
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973
The CrPC in India sets out the procedures for criminal trials and includes important safeguards to prevent abuse while in custody:
Sections 41 and 41A: These sections give the power to perform warrantless arrests and, in an attempt to limit needless arrests, mandate a notice requirement before making an arrest for offenses that are not cognizable.
Section 46: Prohibits the use of deadly force during an arrest unless the defendant is accused of a crime that may result in a sentence of life in prison or death and is resisting arrest.
Section 49: The dignity of the person being arrested is safeguarded by Section 49, which aims to reduce unnecessary restrictions.
Section 54 mandates a medical assessment by a medical officer, which is essential for documenting injuries that may subsequently be utilized as evidence in instances of custodial abuse.
Section 176(1A): This clause, which was created in 2005, requires a judicial magistrate to look into every instance of custodial death or custodial rape, thereby introducing a degree of independent supervision.
Despite the fact that these actions are intended to safeguard procedures, many of them are either ignored or twisted in reality. Preliminary postmortem or inquiry reports are frequently written under pressure due to time limitations, which results in the omission of vital evidence.
The Indian Evidence Act of 1872
The Indian Evidence Act is critical to regulating the admissibility and trustworthiness of evidence, especially in cases of torture and custodial deaths.
Section 25: Guards defendants against coercion during custodial interviews by stipulating that no statement made to a law enforcement officer should be used as evidence against someone accused of any crime.
Section 26 further safeguards by requiring that statements made in police custody be inadmissible unless they are made in the magistrate’s direct presence.
Section 114 : Although it gives the court the power to presume that official actions have been conducted correctly, the absence of an unbiased investigation often casts doubt on this presumption in cases involving custodial deaths.
The Indian Evidence Amendment Bill of 2016’s proposed Section 114B states that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, any deaths or injuries that occur while in police custody are assumed to be the fault of the police. Although this clause has not yet been implemented, human rights advocates and legal experts consider it to be critical to reversing the burden of proof in custodial cases and enhancing accountability.
Protection of Human Rights Act 1993
This legislation establishes the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and state human rights commissions (SHRCs), which are tasked with looking into human rights violations, such deaths in custody. All custodial deaths must be reported to law enforcement authorities within 24 hours under a policy established by the NHRC.
It is empowered to summon witnesses, ask for reports, and conduct its own inquiries. Additionally, it suggests changes to systemic methods and recommends providing restitution.
They are some Limitations:
Recommendations cannot be enforced.
The government is only subject to guidance from the NHRC, not prosecution. Its effectiveness is limited since it is frequently dependent on government personnel for its implementation.
Despite its flaws, the NHRC remains a crucial watchdog and has significantly influenced the debate surrounding custodial fatalities.
The Police Act 1861
In many Indian states, the Police Act continues to govern the structure and discipline of the police force, even if it is antiquated. It enables disciplinary measures against misbehaving policemen. However, it does include explicit guidelines for dealing with violence in custody.
Current police reforms, such as the Model Police Act (2006), advise establishing separate complaints authorities at the state and district levels. But the majority of states have not really embraced these suggestions, resulting in inadequate accountability mechanisms across law enforcement organizations
Prison Act, 1894, and Model Prison Handbook, 2016
The Prison Act governs the administration of prisons, including the duties of prison workers and the treatment of inmates. It is complemented by the model Prison Manual (2016), which includes current standards:
Highlights regular medical checkups, humane treatment, and openness. Recommends that magistrates carry out surprise inspections, that CCTV cameras be installed, and that precise records be maintained.
Encourages jail staff to receive routine training in human rights issues.
Nevertheless, the actual implementation of these standards varies greatly among states, with overcrowding, poor cleanliness, and understaffing continuing to be persistent issues. These circumstances indirectly lead to deaths in custody due to medical neglect and mental health emergencies.
The 1989 Act on the Prevention of Atrocities Against Scheduled Castes and Tribes
This legislation is vital in situations of custodial deaths involving members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The primary provisions include:
Section 3(2)(v): Establishes harsher penalties for government officials who commit offenses against members of SC/ST communities.
Acknowledges the often unreported problem of caste-based mistreatment in custody.
This legislation specifically highlights the link between caste discrimination and custodial violence in rural and semi-urban areas.
Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children), 2015
This law addresses how to handle children who commit crimes, with a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
mandates that kids be kept in Observation Homes as opposed to police jail cells.
Ensures that there are Child Welfare Committees to oversee treatment.
Mandatory reporting and investigation are necessary in the event of a kid’s injury or death while in custody.
Despite the fact that it doesn’t occur frequently, this legislation is essential in defining guidelines for youngsters who pass away while in custody.
The 2017 Mental Healthcare Act
This law safeguards the rights of those suffering from mental illness, even if they are incarcerated.
There should be no solitary confinement or cruel treatment.
The right to community-based therapy and healthcare.
All deaths occurring in mental health facilities must be reported.
This legislation is essential but underutilized given the widespread occurrence of undiagnosed mental illness among prisoners.
Case laws
1. State of West Bengal v. D.K. Basu (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts and Background:
The increasing incidence of custodial murders and cases of custodial violence was brought to the notice of the Chief Justice of India by Justice D.K. Basu, who served as the Executive Chairman of the Legal Aid Services, West Bengal. Because of the letter’s crucial role in protecting Article 21, the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, it was treated as a writ petition in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution.
Issues Raised:
What steps may be done to stop custodial torture and deaths?
What procedural protections must be in place during arrest and detention?
The Supreme Court unanimously concluded that custodial abuse infringes on the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. To prevent the abuse of police power, the Court laid out specific regulations for arrest and detention.
Significant Guidelines has given
1. Memorandum of Arrest: The individual being arrested must complete it immediately, a witness must verify it, and the person must sign it.
2. Inform family members: The detainee’s family or close friend should be informed right away.
3. Medical Examination: The defendant is required to undergo a medical evaluation by a medical officer every 48 hours while in custody.
4. Legal counsel: The person who has been detained has to have the opportunity to speak with a lawyer throughout the interview.
5. Police Identification: Arresting officers must have their name and badge number.
6. Maintaining a Logbook: The arrest must be documented in a registry.
7. Judicial Oversight: The Magistrate must get copies of all arrest records.
Significance:
Established the “procedural due process” criteria for arrests and detentions in India.
Reinforced the notion that the constitution continues to protect individuals even while they are imprisoned.
Found that custodial torture violates both human rights and the constitutional rights guaranteed by Article 21.
The pertinent sections of the Constitution:
The 21st Article guarantees the right to life and personal freedom.
Article 22: Protection against unlawful detention and arrest
Right to Constitutional Remedies: Article 32
Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa, 2 SCC 746 (1993).
Background and Facts:
The police detained a young man by the name of Suman Behera in this case, and he was later found dead on a railroad line with a number of injuries. His mother, Nilabati Behera, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking damages for her son’s death in jail.
Issues :
When someone dies while in police custody, is the state accountable?
Should a breach of Article 21 be addressed through a public law solution that includes payment?
The Supreme Court found the State of Orissa vicariously responsible for Suman Behera’s murder while in custody and ordered it to pay his mother ₹1,50,000 as compensation.
The Court stressed that public law’s remedy in the form of compensation, as well as the criminal law’s punishment of offenders, is how violations of constitutional rights are enforced.
The treatment under public law for the enforcement and protection of fundamental rights is obviously distinct from and in addition to the remedy under private law for damages.
Even if a criminal trial is not concluded, compensation for custodial murder, which is a grave violation of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21, may still be awarded.
Importance:
In this instance, the idea of a “constitutional tort,” in which the state is held strictly responsible for the behavior of its representatives, was established.
It strengthened victims’ ability to petition the government for redress for violations of their human rights.
The Pertinent Constitutional Clauses:
Article 21: The Right to Life and Dignity
An appeal directly to the Supreme Court to protect basic rights in accordance with Article 32
Conclusion:
Custodial deaths in India highlight the underlying problems of inadequate law enforcement, ineffective legal protection implementation, and a lack of accountability. Such occurrences persist because of systemic failures, antiquated legislation, and institutional indifference, in spite of constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22 and judicial recommendations. India’s failure to ratify important international agreements like the UNCAT (United Nations Convention Against Torture) and the lack of impartial oversight have further weakened human rights safeguards. In order to maintain the rule of law and safeguard the rights and dignity of prisoners, it is imperative to strengthen legal frameworks, guarantee police accountability, and implement institutional reforms.
Q&As
What are the main reasons for high death toll among detained persons in India?
Torture, Medical Malpractice, a lack of accountability, and insufficient legal protection enforcement.
Which Article in the Constitution protect individuals from custodial abuse?
Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution protect against arbitrary arrest and guarantee the right to life.
What methods may be used to lower the rate of custodial deaths?
By ratifying UNCAT (United Nations Convention Against Torture), enacting effective legislation, conducting independent investigations, and implementing police reforms.
