Author: Harpreet Kaur, a student at Maharishi Markandeshwar (deemed to be university)
To the Point
The legitimacy of any democratic nation is measured not only by the laws it enacts but also by the manner in which those laws are enforced. The police are entrusted with protecting society, supporting public order, and ensuring that justice reaches every citizen. However, when those responsible for upholding the law resort to torture, illegal detention, or abuse of power, the justice system itself begins to lose credibility. Custodial violence represents one of the most serious violations of human rights in India because it occurs in spaces where individuals are completely dependent upon the State for their safety. It is not merely an instance of police misconduct but a constitutional failure that challenges the principles of equality, liberty, and human dignity. Police accountability, therefore, is not an administrative formality; it is an indispensable safeguard against the misuse of authority and a prerequisite for preserving the rule of law.
Use of Legal Jargon
Custodial violence refers to any form of physical, psychological, or sexual abuse inflicted upon an individual while under police or judicial custody. Such conduct amounts to a violation of fundamental rights, particularly those guaranteed under Articles 14, 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India. The issue frequently involves concepts such as constitutional tort, due process of law, habeas corpus, judicial review, vicarious liability of the State, criminal liability, natural justice, custodial death, departmental inquiry, public law compensation, and the rule of law. Indian constitutional jurisprudence consistently recognizes that an arrested person does not lose the protection of fundamental rights merely because they are accused of an offence. The State remains under a legal obligation to ensure humane treatment throughout the process of arrest, detention, investigation, and trial.
The Proof
Despite constitutional safeguards and repeated judicial interventions, custodial violence remains a persistent concern in India. Reports published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) continue to record incidents of custodial deaths each year, while independent studies suggest that numerous cases of torture remain undocumented because victims fear retaliation or lack confidence in the investigative process. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)has repeatedly directed that every custodial death must be reported within twenty-four hours, followed by an independent inquiry and video-graphed post-mortem examination to ensure transparency. Nevertheless, implementation often remains inconsistent across states.
India’s international commitments further underscore the seriousness of this issue. Although India signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997, it has yet to enact a dedicated anti-torture legislation. Consequently, prosecutions for custodial torture are largely pursued under general provisions of criminal law rather than through a comprehensive statutory framework specifically addressing torture by public officials. This legislative gap continues to attract criticism from legal scholars, human rights organisations, and international bodies.
Abstract
The relationship between the citizen and the State is built upon trust. When an individual is taken into police custody, the State assumes complete responsibility for that person’s safety, dignity, and constitutional rights. Any form of violence committed during custody therefore constitutes not only an offence against the individual but also a betrayal of the constitutional promise of justice.
Custodial violence has remained one of the most debated issues within India’s criminal justice system because it reflects the tension between effective policing and the protection of civil liberties. While law enforcement agencies often operate under immense pressure to investigate crimes swiftly, no circumstance can justify the use of torture, coercion, or degrading treatment. The Constitution guarantees that every individual—whether innocent, accused, or convicted—is entitled to live with dignity and to receive equal protection of the law.
Over the decades, the Supreme Court of India has emerged as the principal guardian against custodial abuse. Through a series of landmark judgments, the Court has transformed Article 21 into a powerful instrument for protecting prisoners’ rights and ensuring accountability for police misconduct. Yet, despite these judicial advances, custodial violence continues to occur due to inadequate implementation of safeguards, institutional reluctance to prosecute officials, prolonged investigations, and limited public oversight.
The challenge before India is not the absence of legal principles but the effective enforcement of existing protections. Building public confidence in law enforcement requires greater transparency, independent investigations, stronger institutional accountability, and a policing culture thaconstitutional values over coercive practices.
Case Laws
One of the most transformative judgments in this area is D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, where the Supreme Court acknowledged that custodial torture is one of the worst forms of human rights violations. Recognizing the urgent need for procedural safeguards, the Court laid down detailed guidelines governing arrests and detention. These directions required police officers to maintain proper identification, prepare an arrest memorandum, promptly inform family members of the arrest, conduct periodic medical examinations, and maintain accurate custody records. These guidelines later became an integral part of criminal procedure and significantly strengthened the rights of arrested persons.
In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the State bears constitutional responsibility for protecting individuals in its custody. The Court held that when fundamental rights are violated through custodial death or torture, monetary compensation may be awarded as a public law remedy. Importantly, it clarified that the doctrine of sovereign immunity cannot shield the State from liability arising from constitutional violations.
The decision in Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) 4 SCC 260 further emphasized that the power to arrest cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The Court observed that every arrest must be justified by necessity and reasonableness, and that relatives or friends of the arrested individual should be informed without unnecessary delay. This judgment reinforced the principle that liberty cannot be sacrificed merely because the law authorizes arrest.
The Supreme Court also addressed the rights of women in custody in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983) 2 SCC 96. The Court directed that female detainees must receive special protection, including separate lock-ups, legal assistance, and regular inspection of detention facilities. The judgment highlighted the vulnerability of women in custodial settings and the corresponding duty of the State to ensure their safety.
Similarly, in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526, the Court condemned the routine use of handcuffs, observing that personal dignity survives even after arrest. The practice of mechanically handcuffing prisoners, without adequate justification, was held to be inconsistent with constitutional values.
An equally significant contribution came through Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494, where the Supreme Court declared that prisoners continue to enjoy fundamental rights despite incarceration. The judgment firmly rejected the notion that imprisonment extinguishes constitutional protections and expanded judicial oversight over prison administration.
Conclusion
A society governed by the rule of law cannot permit violence in the very institutions entrusted with enforcing justice. Custodial violence weakens public confidence in law enforcement, erodes constitutional morality, and inflicts irreversible harm upon victims and their families. The issue extends beyond isolated incidents of police excess; it reflects deeper institutional challenges involving accountability, transparency, and respect for human dignity.
India possesses a robust constitutional framework and an impressive body of judicial precedents aimed at preventing custodial abuse. However, the true measure of justice lies not in the existence of legal safeguards but in their faithful implementation. Independent investigations into custodial deaths, strict prosecution of offending officials, wider use of CCTV surveillance in police stations, continuous human rights training for police personnel, and the enactment of a comprehensive anti-torture law would collectively strengthen accountability. Protecting the dignity of every individual in custody is not an obstacle to effective policing; rather, it is the foundation of a criminal justice system worthy of public trust and constitutional democracy.
FAQs
Q1. What is custodial violence?
Custodial violence refers to physical, mental, emotional, or sexual abuse inflicted upon a person while in police or judicial custody. It also includes torture, illegal detention, and custodial deaths.
Q2. Which constitutional provisions protect persons in custody?
Articles 14, 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India guarantee equality before law, protection against self-incrimination, the right to life and personal liberty, and safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention.
Q3. Why is the judgment in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal considered significant?
The judgment established mandatory procedural safeguards for arrests and detention, making police authorities accountable for protecting the rights and dignity of arrested persons.
Q4. Can the State be held liable for custodial deaths?
Yes. The Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissaheld that constitutional courts may award compensation where custodial violence results in the violation of fundamental rights.
Q5. What reforms can reduce custodial violence in India?
Effective implementation of judicial guidelines, independent investigations, police reforms, CCTV surveillance, human rights training, speedy prosecution of guilty officials, and enactment of a comprehensive anti-torture law are essential to reducing custodial violence.
