Author: Ishika Sharma, Lords University, Alwar
Abstract
In India, custodial deaths are a severe example of institutional failure and systemic violence, which raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the rule of law and the defense of fundamental human rights. The Indian criminal justice system is still beset by custodial violence in spite of a strong constitutional framework and numerous legal protections. This essay examines the various facets of deaths that occur while a person is in custody as well as the responsibility of Indian police agencies. It looks at the laws, court rulings, constitutional mandates, and international commitments that aim to stop this phenomenon. A culture of impunity within police departments, legal loopholes, political meddling, and a lack of independent oversight mechanisms are among the systemic issues that allow such violations. The paper highlights the urgent need for police reforms and institutional accountability to protect the right to life and human dignity through an analysis of seminal rulings like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa. In order to guarantee justice and preserve democratic values, the article advocates for a change to a policing model that is focused on human rights and offers extensive legal and administrative reforms.
Introduction
Custodial death is a term that causes widespread concern and moral outrage. In any democratic society, the unjust death of a person in the custody of law enforcement is a source of great concern, as it represents the most heinous form of abuse of power by the state. Custodial deaths have become all too common in India, highlighting systemic failures in governance, accountability, and civil liberties protection. While law enforcement agencies are responsible for maintaining law and order, any deviation from legal and constitutional boundaries7 particularly resulting in the death of an accused or detainee, is a fundamental violation of human rights. The right to life and personal liberty is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
However, for the most vulnerable members of society, this right is meaningless due to the ongoing occurrence of custodial deaths. Every year, hundreds of deaths in custody are reported by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), many of which go unreported or unpunished. Weak institutional safeguards, poor police training, societal apathy, and a lack of effective legal deterrents are the causes of this ongoing trend. In order to7 improve police accountability and safeguard constitutional rights, this article suggests significant reforms to India’s legal, institutional, and judicial responses to deaths that occur while a person is in custody.
Concept and Classification of Custodial Death
The term “custodial death” describes the passing of a person who was in the legal or illegal custody of law enforcement. Police custodial deaths, judicial custodial deaths, and illegal custodial deaths are the three primary categories into which these deaths fall. Torture, physical abuse, or medical negligence are often implicated in police custodial deaths, which happen when someone passes away while in the custody of the police, usually during questioning or detention. Contrarily, judicial custodial deaths occur on prison property or under the jurisdiction of correctional authorities and can be caused by systemic neglect, inmate violence, carelessness, or natural causes.
Because they result from detentions that are not authorized by law—either because of a lack of court approval or because police officers have abducted someone—illegal custodial deaths are especially serious. Every category constitutes a serious transgression of moral and legal norms, but more significantly, it violates the Constitution’s guarantee of the fundamental right to life. Determining the extent of legal responsibility, the type of inquiry, and the institutional changes necessary to address the root causes are all significantly influenced by the classification.
Judicial Pronouncements and Case Laws
The Indian judiciary has played a critical role in developing a strong jurisprudence to address custodial violence and ensure police accountability. In addition to the most influential rulings is the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), in which the Supreme Court established comprehensive guidelines for arrest and detention. These included preparing an arrest memo signed by a witness, informing a family member or friend of the arrest, undergoing a medical examination every 48 hours, and presenting the arrestee to the magistrate. The Court emphasized that any form of torture or custodial violence was a clear violation of Article 21.
In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the Supreme Court went a step further, ruling that the State could be held vicariously liable for custodial deaths and ordering monetary compensation to the victim’s family. This represented a significant shift toward acknowledging the state’s role in protecting individual rights. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2005), the Court emphasized the importance of independent investigating agencies to investigate custodial deaths, citing the shortcomings of police-led inquiries. Similarly, in State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995), the Court condemned the widespread use of third-degree methods and advocated for exemplary punishment for errant officers. The case of Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (2011) emphasized that police officers involved in fake encounters and custodial killings must be prosecuted alongside other criminals. These decisions reflect the judiciary’s commitment to protecting human rights, though their implementation is frequently inadequate due to procedural delays and a lack of institutional cooperation.
Role of Institutions
Several institutions, most notably the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), have been charged with investigating and preventing custodial deaths. The NHRC, established under the Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993, takes a proactive approach by mandating that any custodial death be reported within 24 hours, conducting suo motu inquiries, and recommending disciplinary or legal action. However, the NHRC’s suggestions are not legally binding, and its effectiveness is frequently hampered by bureaucratic inertia and a lack of enforcement tools. State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs), while similarly empowered, are frequently underfunded and subject to political interference. Section 176 of the CrPC requires the judiciary, particularly judicial magistrates, and to perform inquiries into deaths in custody, but these investigations are frequently hampered by infrastructure deficiencies and reliance on police for preliminary evidence. Internal police mechanisms for disciplinary action do exist, but they lack transparency and frequently result in departmental warnings rather than criminal prosecutions. The lack of an independent oversight body further undermines the accountability structure. Despite the Supreme Court’s recommendation that each state establish Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs), compliance has been uneven and partial. Without independent institutional mechanisms, custodial deaths go unreported, uninvestigated, and largely unpunished.
International Human Rights Standards
The necessity of a strict anti-custodial death regime is further supported by India’s responsibilities under international human rights law. India is required to protect people from torture and arbitrary deprivation of life as a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The right to life is guaranteed by Article 6 of the ICCPR, and torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment are forbidden by Article 7. The 1997 United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) was also signed by India, but its provisions have not yet been incorporated into Indian law because the country has not ratified it. No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), especially Article 5. International bodies and civil society organizations have widely criticized India’s delay in ratifying UNCAT and enacting nationwide anti-torture legislation. That unwillingness not only undermines India’s global human rights standing, but also denies citizens vital legal remedies that could serve as a deterrent to custodial violence.
Causes of Custodial Deaths
A number of factors combine to explain why custodial deaths continue to occur. The most common of these is the use of third-degree tactics by police to coerce confessions, frequently under duress to produce findings for criminal investigations. Executives and politicians who put crime resolution statistics ahead of human rights are tacitly endorsing this practice. Another significant issue is institutional apathy, as police departments frequently postpone filing First Information Reports (FIRs) opposed to other officers in order to shield them from prosecution. Transfers and promotions are frequently used as incentives for loyalty rather than merit, and political patronage is a major factor in insulating negligent officers from accountability. Innovative gaps, such as the lack of monitoring with CCTV in many police forces and lock-ups, further contribute to the scarcity of evidence in such cases. Another factor contributing to deaths that are preventable in custody is delayed medical care, which is often the result of deliberate negligence.
Police Accountability Mechanisms
A multifaceted strategy is needed to ensure police accountability in cases of custodial death. Police departments have internal disciplinary procedures, but they are rarely clear-cut or strict. A message of impunity is conveyed when officers are temporarily suspended and then reinstated. A crucial check is provided by judicial oversight, as courts occasionally issue restitution orders or launch legal actions. However, justice is frequently elusive due to the sluggish pace of court proceedings. In order to establish independent organizations to look into complaints against police officers, the Supreme Court ordered the creation of Officers Complaints Organizations at the state and district levels.
However, many states have not given these authorities enough staff, resources, or authority, resulting in a haphazard implementation. Most states have yet to adopt the Model Police Act of 2006, which includes a number of reforms aimed at improving accountability. Without a unified legal and administrative structure, attempts to reduce deaths that occur while a person is in custody continue to be dispersed and ineffectual.
Suggested Reforms and Way Forward
Comprehensive institutional and legal reforms are needed to address custodial deaths. A specific Violence Prevention Law that makes custodial violence illegal and lays out precise guidelines for scrutiny and punishment must be passed immediately at the legislative level. The Model Police Act, 2006, that mandates independent oversight, set tenures for policemen, and operational transparency, must be enacted by states. Custodial violence can be greatly reduced by technological interventions like the required setting up of security camera systems in police lock-ups, the use for cameras worn on the body during arrests, and the digitization of arrest records. Institutionalizing training and capacity-building initiatives is necessary, with a focus on educating police officers about human rights and moral policing.
To guarantee prompt justice, changes to the judiciary are also required, such as the creation of expedited courts for cases involving custodial death. Plans for victim compensation must be reinforced, and the relatives of the deceased must be given access to legal assistance and witness protection. The only way to eliminate a system-wide culture of criminality and create an accountable, open, and just policing system is to take a comprehensive, rights-based approach.
Conclusion
The ultimate breach of the social compact between the government and its people is represented by custodial deaths. Such deaths are not isolated incidents in a society that is democratic where the rule of law is upheld; rather, they are a sign of systemic decay and an unaccountable culture. Even though the judiciary and Constitution have established a strong foundation for the defense of human rights, there is still a noticeable discrepancy between the two. A climate of impunity is maintained by the absence of autonomous oversight bodies, the governmental shielding of corrupt officials, and the failure to carry out court-mandated reforms. The State must recognize that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 is a fundamental right that cannot be curtailed, not even while a person is in detention. Rethinking the police force from a tool of oppression to a service devoted to the welfare of the public and constitutional morality is imperative. India can get closer to the principles of fairness, equity, and human dignity outlined in its Constitution by implementing significant reforms and maintaining the values of accountability and transparency.
FAQS
Q1: What does “custodial death” mean?
When someone passes away while in the custody of law enforcement, such as during an interrogation, detention, or incarceration, it is referred to as a “custodial death.” It frequently involves claims of power abuse, carelessness, or torture.
Q2: What legal recourse does India offer for deaths that occur while a person is in custody?
Families of victims may file writ petition under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution to obtain compensation. Section 176(1A) of the CrPC requires judicial investigations and allows for the filing of FIRs against responsible officers. Additionally, the NHRC may suggest compensation and action.
Q3: Which seminal case created rules to stop torture in detention?
In order to prevent torture and deaths in detention, the Supreme Court established comprehensive guidelines in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) to protect people’s rights during arrest and detention.
