Custodial Violence in India: A Constitutional Crisis and Need for Accountability

Author: Sudeshna Das
Institution: Vidyasagar College, University of Calcutta

Custodial Violence in India: A Constitutional Crisis and Need for Accountability

Custodial violence in India remains a deeply troubling issue that raises significant concerns regarding state accountability and human rights. Despite the country’s democratic framework and constitutional promises—particularly Article 21, which enshrines the right to life and personal liberty—incidents of torture, abuse, and deaths in police and judicial custody persist across the nation. Such violations are often met with little to no consequence for the perpetrators, highlighting a glaring gap between constitutional ideals and ground reality.

This paper undertakes a critical examination of custodial violence, considering its legal, constitutional, and social dimensions. It explores the deficiencies within India’s existing legal framework that allow such abuses to occur with impunity. The discussion also underscores the pressing necessity for more stringent accountability mechanisms, aiming to bridge the gap between law and practice and to safeguard fundamental human rights.

Understanding Custodial Violence: Types and Patterns

Alright, let’s cut to the chase—custodial violence? It’s basically a catch-all for some seriously messed up stuff: beatings, mental torture, sexual assault, blackmail, even straight-up murder—all happening while someone’s supposed to be “safe” in police or judicial custody. Sometimes it’s the cops, sometimes it’s the courts, and sometimes folks just disappear into illegal detention. Not exactly your feel-good bedtime story.

And get this, the numbers are probably way worse than what you see on paper. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and a bunch of activist groups keep calling out that a lot of deaths in custody just get swept under the rug or labeled as something else. Like, NHRC clocked over 1700 custodial deaths in 2022. That’s just what they managed to count. Most of the time, nobody pays for this—literally or figuratively. If anyone makes it out alive, they almost never get any real help or justice, it’s a disaster, honestly.

Constitutional Provisions and Legal Safeguards

Alright, let’s break it down. The Indian Constitution actually goes pretty hard on protecting people from the state messing with your basic rights—at least on paper. Article 21? That’s the big one. No one’s supposed to lose their life or liberty unless there’s an actual law and some kind of process. Sounds solid, right? Article 20(3) is like, “Hey, you don’t have to snitch on yourself.” Classic. And Article 22? That’s your shield against getting tossed in jail for no reason.

Now, if you dig into the nitty-gritty—like the CrPC, Evidence Act, IPC—there’s more. Section 49 of the CrPC basically says, “Chill out, cops, don’t go overboard restraining people.” Then Sections 330 and 331 in the IPC? They actually make it a crime for cops or whoever to beat a confession out of you. Section 376(2) deals with custodial rape, which, yes, is as horrifying as it sounds and sadly needs to be spelled out in law.

But here’s the kicker: all these rules and protections? They’re not always worth the paper they’re printed on. Enforcement is patchy, to put it mildly. And if you—or worse, your family—end up on the wrong side of things, guess who’s got to prove everything? Yep- The victim. The system’s stacked, and honestly, it’s no secret.

Landmark Judgments and Judicial Interventions

The Indian judiciary has consistently recognized custodial violence as a fundamental breach of constitutional rights. Several landmark judgments serve as pivotal references in this regard.

For instance, in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court established comprehensive guidelines to regulate arrest and detention procedures. These included requirements such as maintaining detailed arrest memos, promptly notifying relatives, and ensuring medical examinations of detainees. Notably, these protocols were later codified through amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code.

In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the Court affirmed that monetary compensation is an appropriate remedy in cases involving custodial deaths, thereby recognizing state accountability.

Similarly, Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) clarified that arrests should not be conducted as a matter of routine; law enforcement must provide valid justification for depriving an individual of liberty.

Nevertheless, despite the clarity of these judicial pronouncements, effective implementation remains a persistent challenge. Independent investigations into allegations of custodial violence are infrequent, and police personnel seldom face meaningful consequences for violations. This gap between legal principle and practice underscores ongoing systemic weaknesses.

Gaps in Legal Framework and the Absence of Anti-Torture Law

India inked the UN Convention Against Torture( UNCAT) in 1997, yet the country has not moved forward with formal ratification. Although ananti-torture bill made it through the Lok Sabha in 2010, it unfortunately stalled and lapsed in the Rajya Sabha. This absence of devotedanti-torture legislation creates significant procedural query and weakens enforcement fabrics. Victims of torture constantly vacillate to report abuse, largely out of fear of reprisal, compounding this, India lacks a public preventative medium as needed by UNCAT. While the Prevention of Torture Bill has resurfaced in Parliament multiple times, it remains unpassed, despite patient calls from the Law Commission and the National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC). A further complication is Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which requires governmental blessing before executing public officers. In practice, this provision frequently shields police officers from responsibility and undermines sweats to address torture within the justice system.

The Role of Police Reforms and Structural Issues

Custodial violence in India persists largely due to a persistent culture of impunity, insufficient training, political interference, and inadequate accountability. The country’s policing framework is still governed by the archaic Police Act of 1861—a colonial relic more suited for control than for serving the needs of a modern democracy. This outdated structure encourages opacity, discourages transparency, and ultimately undermines justice for victims.

Over several decades, numerous expert committees and judicial interventions have highlighted the critical need for comprehensive police reforms. The National Police Commission (1977-81) was among the earliest bodies to propose substantial changes, advocating for insulation from political pressures alongside improved training, working conditions, and stronger accountability mechanisms. Yet, these recommendations have rarely been implemented in earnest.

Tracing Equality: Historical Roots, Constitutional Mandate, and Contemporary Relevance

A pivotal moment came with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), which issued seven key directives aimed at reforming police functioning. These included the establishment of State Security Commissions, separating investigative duties from law and order responsibilities, ensuring fixed tenures for officers, creating Police Establishment Boards, and forming Police Complaints Authorities at both state and district levels. Despite this clear mandate, most states have failed to implement these directives in both letter and spirit.

Additionally, India’s police-to-population ratio falls well below international standards, resulting in overburdened officers and slow response times. There is little investment in police welfare, mental health resources, or technological modernization. In such a resource-constrained environment, custodial torture too often becomes a default investigative tool, perpetuated by institutional norms and lack of oversight.

To address these challenges, police reforms must be comprehensive, integrating gender sensitivity training, human rights awareness, community policing, and regular monitoring of custodial environments. Only by transforming the police institution from a force-centric to a service-oriented model can meaningful and lasting change be achieved.

Conclusion: From Constitutional Promises to Ground Realities – Ending Custodial Violence in India

Custodial violence in India isn’t simply a specialized excrescence in the ministry of law enforcement; it represents a profound treason of indigenous ideals. While Articles 21 and 22 presumably guarantee particular liberty and quality, the lived reality is far more disquieting. Incidents of abuse, torture, and indeed custodial deaths have come distressingly common, emphasizing a deep- confirmed extremity in governance and responsibility. What’s particularly striking is that the issue isn’t embedded in a lack of legal fabrics or corner judicial pronouncements — D.K. Basu and Nilabati Behera, to name just two. The real stumbling block is the absence of genuine political and institutional will. Law enforcement agencies each too frequently sidestep or adulterate court directives, while archaic colonizer- period bills like the Police Act of 1861 continue to shape police practices. India’s disinclination to legislate a comprehensive anti-torture law or confirm the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) sends a disturbing communication about the state’s precedences regarding institutional violence. Addressing this extremity calls for amulti-pronged strategies which are as follows-

1. Legislate a robust Anti-Torture Law, one that easily defines custodial torture and incorporates meaningful enforcement mechanisms.
2. Confirm the UNCAT and establish a National Preventive Medium to totally cover detention installations and police lockups.
3. Institutionalize independent Police Complaints Authorities in every state, equipped to conduct timely and believable examinations.
4. Ensure the National Human Rights Commission’s recommendations are binding, with sufficient autonomy, coffers, and enforcement powers.
5. Invest in forensic and digital structure — including mandatory CCTV content and body cameras to foster translucency and discourage abuse.
6. Prioritize the education and training of the police labor force in mortal rights,non-coercive disquisition ways, and conflict resolution.
7. Give comprehensive recuperation for survivors of custodial violence, encompassing cerebral support, legal backing, compensation, and substantiation protection. 8. Encourage active civil society involvement in monitoring, establishing and raising mindfulness about custodial practices. Eventually, responsibility must begin at the loftiest situations of governance.

Political leaders and elderly officers must demonstrate zero forbearance for immunity. The sustained engagement of civil society, a watchful media, and an independent bar is essential to guard translucency and uphold individual rights. Custodial torture unnaturally challenges the legality of India’s indigenous republic.
When those entrusted with public safety violate abecedarian rights behind unrestricted doors, the pledge of justice loses its meaning. Ending custodial violence is n’t simply a matter of legal compliance; it’s a moral imperative and a test of communal integrity, upholding the Constitution requires icing that no individual suffers injustice at the hands of the very institutions intended to cover them.

References

1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416
2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746
3. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) SCC (4) 260
4. Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1
5. The Constitution of India, Government of India
6. UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), 1984
7. Law Commission of India, Report No. 273: Implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture
8. National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Annual Reports
9. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Reports on Custodial Deaths
10. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) – “Status of Policing in India Report”
11. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India – Prison Statistics India
12. Human Rights Watch – “Broken System: Dysfunction, Abuse and Impunity in the Indian Police”
13. Amnesty International – India Country Reports
14. The Hindu, The Indian Express, Scroll.in – News Reports on Custodial Violence (e.g., Jayaraj-Bennix case, Tamil Nadu, 2020)