Author: Abinaya Raja, Chennai Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Pudupakkam
To the point
Custodial violence, involving abuse or torture of individuals in police custody, remains a grave human rights violation in India despite constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22. Legal provisions in the BNS, BNSS, and Indian Evidence Act aim to prevent such abuse, but implementation remains weak. Despite landmark judgments established guidelines and affirmed the right to compensation, custodial deaths persist, as highlighted by NCRB data.
India’s failure to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and the persistence of colonial policing practices highlight the urgent need for police reforms, including the replacement of the Police Act of 1861, establishment of independent complaint authorities, use of body cameras and CCTV, and mandatory human rights training for police forces. Systemic reforms, judicial vigilance, and public accountability are essential to end custodial violence and protect the dignity and rights of individuals.
Use of Legal Jargon
Custodial violence in India arises from the infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which upholds every person’s right to life and personal liberty. Legal provisions like Sections 120(1) and 120(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) criminalize the use of torture to extract confessions, while Section 103 prescribes penalties for custodial deaths considered as murder. Similarly, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), through Sections 35 and 46, seeks to prevent arbitrary arrests and excessive use of restraint by law enforcement officials. Moreover, Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, render any confession made under coercion or during police custody inadmissible as evidence in court. The judiciary has reinforced these safeguards through landmark judgments such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, which laid down procedural standards and recognized the right to compensation for victims of custodial abuse. However, the persistence of custodial violence highlights the pressing need for effective enforcement of these laws and comprehensive police reforms.
The Proof
The alarming frequency of custodial deaths and police brutality in India is well-documented through official data and judicial pronouncements. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), India continues to report numerous custodial deaths annually, yet convictions of police personnel remain exceptionally rare, reflecting a deep-rooted failure in accountability. The Tuticorin custodial deaths (2020) of Jeyaraj and Bennicks and the Ajith Kumar case (Sivaganga, 2025), where a young man died allegedly due to custodial torture, are chilling reminders of the persistence of this abuse. Despite guidelines laid down in DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) and recognition of compensation as a constitutional right in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), such incidents continue unabated. India’s continued refusal to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) highlights its hesitation to fully commit to international human rights norms. These facts, cases, and legal gaps collectively prove that custodial violence in India is not an exception but a recurring violation demanding immediate legal and institutional reforms.
Abstract
Custodial violence remains one of the most serious human rights violations in India, undermining the rule of law and the constitutional guarantee of dignity and personal liberty under Article 21. Despite existing legal safeguards, judicial guidelines, and constitutional provisions, instances of torture, custodial deaths, and police brutality continue to rise, as evidenced by cases like the Tuticorin custodial deaths (2020) and the Ajith Kumar case (2025). The failure to hold perpetrators accountable, coupled with India’s non-ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), highlights the urgent need for comprehensive police reforms. This article examines the legal framework, landmark judgments, current challenges, and the pressing necessity for structural reforms to ensure that the rights of individuals in custody are fully protected.
Case Laws
1. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
This case stands as the most significant judgment in India addressing custodial violence and ensuring police accountability. It began with a letter sent to the Supreme Court by D.K. Basu, drawing attention to the growing number of custodial deaths and incidents of torture. Acknowledging the gravity of the matter, the Court issued a detailed set of 11 guidelines aimed at preventing custodial abuse. These guidelines included requirements such as preparing arrest memos, conducting prompt medical examinations, notifying the arrested person’s family, and presenting the accused before a magistrate within 24 hours. The Court emphasized that custodial torture constitutes a clear violation of Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. This landmark ruling continues to serve as the foundation of India’s legal stance against custodial violence, reinforcing the principle that law enforcement must act in accordance with constitutional values and respect for human dignity.
2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
In this case, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of custodial death and laid down the principle of State liability for violations of human rights. The petitioner, Nilabati Behera, moved the Court to seek justice following the death of her 22-year-old son, who suffered fatal injuries while in police custody. The Court held that custodial violence violates the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It made the State liable and directed that compensation be awarded to the victim’s family as a remedy under public law, separate from remedies under private or criminal law. This landmark decision firmly established the right to compensation as a vital aspect of justice in custodial abuse cases.
3. Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994)
In this significant case, the Supreme Court of India highlighted the abuse of police power of arrest and stressed the need to balance law enforcement with the protection of individual rights. Joginder Kumar, a young advocate, was picked up by the police without formal charges or immediate disclosure of reasons for arrest. The Court observed that an arrest must not be made routinely or on mere suspicion, and every individual has the right to know the grounds of arrest. The Court ruled that Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandate that the arrested person’s family or friends must be informed immediately. This judgment reinforced the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in arrests, laying groundwork for subsequent custodial safeguards.
4. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983)
In this pioneering case, the Supreme Court took cognizance of the custodial abuse of women prisoners based on a letter written by journalist and human rights activist Sheela Barse. The petitioner highlighted the plight of women in police custody who faced physical and mental abuse. The Court emphasized that the fundamental rights under Article 21 extend to every individual, including those in custody, and laid down guidelines to protect women prisoners. These included mandatory separate interrogation by female officers, legal aid access, and prompt medical examination. The judgment is a cornerstone in protecting the dignity and rights of women detainees, ensuring that custodial spaces do not become grounds for exploitation or violence.
5.Prakash Kadam & Ors. v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta & Anr. (2011)
In this important case, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of fake encounters and custodial killings by police personnel. The Court strongly condemned extra-judicial killings, observing that custodial violence and fake encounters are nothing but cold-blooded murders. The Court observed that police personnel who take the lives of innocent individuals under the pretext of encounters may be awarded the death penalty in the rarest of rare cases, as such conduct erodes the rule of law and tarnishes the credibility of the justice system. This judgment sent a clear message that no one is above the law, including those tasked with enforcing it, and highlighted the need for strict accountability and adherence to legal procedures in law enforcement.
Conclusion
Custodial violence undermines the core values of constitutional democracy and violates the essence of human dignity. Despite clear legal provisions, judicial guidelines, and international human rights standards, custodial deaths and police brutality continue to plague India’s justice system. Cases like D.K. Basu, Nilabati Behera, and the tragic death of Ajith Kumar highlight the urgent need for not just legal safeguards but effective implementation and systemic police reforms. Strengthening accountability mechanisms, establishing independent oversight bodies, enforcing the use of technology like CCTVs, and promoting human rights education within police forces are essential steps towards ensuring that the law serves to protect, not oppress. A justice system that tolerates custodial violence undermines public trust, weakens democracy, and violates the right to life and dignity guaranteed by Article 21. Only through collective judicial, legislative, and societal will can India hope to eradicate this deep-rooted injustice.
FAQs
1. What does custodial violence refer to?
Custodial violence refers to the physical, mental, or psychological abuse of individuals by police or law enforcement officials while in custody. It includes torture, illegal detention, custodial deaths, and sexual harassment.
2. Which constitutional provisions protect individuals from custodial violence in India?
The primary constitutional protections includes Article 21(Right to life and personal liberty), Article 22 (Protection against arbitrary arrest and detention), Article 20(3) ( Protection against self-incrimination)
3. What is the significance of the D.K. Basu case in custodial violence jurisprudence?
In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court issued 11 guidelines to prevent custodial torture and deaths, ensuring legal procedures and protection of detainees’ rights.
4. Why is police reform necessary in India?
Police reforms are essential to eliminate the colonial legacy of policing, ensure accountability, uphold human rights, and strengthen public trust in law enforcement.
5. What is the status of India’s ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)?
India has signed the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), but it has not ratified it so far, leading to ongoing delays in the implementation of a complete anti-torture law.
6. How can custodial violence be effectively prevented?
Custodial violence can be effectively prevented by enacting a new police law, installing CCTVs in all police stations, creating independent complaints authorities, conducting regular human rights training, and ensuring strict judicial oversight of custodial practice.
