Custodial Violence in India: Legal Safeguards and Judicial Response

Custody, by its very nature, places an individual under the control of the State. When a person is detained or arrested, the law presumes that the individual is under the protection of the authorities. Yet, ironically, it is within this very space of protection that some of the gravest human rights violations occur. Custodial violence—which includes torture, assault, humiliation, and even death of individuals in police or judicial custody—remains one of the most pressing challenges to India’s commitment to constitutional rights and the rule of law.

This article explores the reality of custodial violence in India, the constitutional and statutory safeguards against it, the approach of the judiciary, landmark judgments, and the way forward in addressing this systemic problem.

The Reality of Custodial Violence

Custodial violence is not a new phenomenon. From colonial times, the police force in India was viewed as a tool of control rather than a protector of citizens’ rights. Unfortunately, this legacy persists. Reports from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and independent organizations reveal disturbing figures of custodial deaths every year, many of which involve allegations of torture.

Victims are often from marginalized communities—poor, illiterate, socially disadvantaged—who lack access to legal aid. They are more vulnerable to coercive interrogation methods, arbitrary detention, and denial of procedural rights. The UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), which India signed in 1997 but has still not ratified, underscores the urgency of addressing this issue at both a legislative and practical level.

Constitutional Safeguards

The framers of the Constitution, keenly aware of the dangers of unchecked State power, incorporated multiple safeguards to protect individuals from abuse:

• Article 21: The right to life and personal liberty, interpreted expansively by courts, prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. 
• Article 20(3): Protects against self-incrimination, which custodial torture often seeks to extract. 
• Article 22: Provides safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention, including the right to be informed of grounds of arrest and the right to consult a lawyer. 
• Article 32 and 226: Enable citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court or High Courts for enforcement of these rights, often via writs of habeas corpus. 

Together, these provisions reflect a constitutional commitment to protect individuals in custody.

Statutory Framework

Several statutes address the issue of custodial violence, though critics argue they remain inadequate:

1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — replacing IPC and CrPC, these retain provisions penalizing wrongful confinement, assault, and custodial deaths. 
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) — under Section 24, confessions obtained through coercion are inadmissible. 
3. Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS) — provides procedural safeguards like mandatory production before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest and medical examination of accused persons. 
4. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 — establishes the NHRC and State Human Rights Commissions to monitor custodial practices. 
5. Guidelines on Arrest and Detention — introduced by the judiciary, supplement statutory safeguards. 

Landmark Judicial Pronouncements

The Indian judiciary has played a vital role in confronting custodial violence and issuing guidelines to protect the rights of detainees.

• DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): A watershed case where the Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines to prevent custodial torture, including the right of the arrested person to inform a relative, preparation of arrest memos, and mandatory medical examinations. These directions were later incorporated into statutory law. 
• Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983): The Court emphasized the need for humane treatment of women prisoners and directed legal aid facilities for detainees. 
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978 & 1980): Expanded the scope of Article 21 by holding that prisoners do not lose their fundamental rights upon conviction, and protection against torture applies equally to them. 
• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993): Recognized the principle of compensation for victims of custodial deaths, holding the State strictly liable for violation of fundamental rights. 
• Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994): Held that arrest must not be routine and arbitrary, and that police officers must justify the necessity of an arrest. 

These cases demonstrate how judicial intervention has transformed the landscape of custodial rights in India.

International Standards and India’s Position

Globally, custodial violence is condemned as a violation of basic human rights. Instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the UN Convention Against Torture (1984) set out obligations to prohibit torture and ensure accountability.

India has signed but not ratified the UNCAT, largely due to concerns over drafting domestic anti-torture legislation. This reluctance has been criticized, as ratification would impose stronger international scrutiny and legal obligations.

Persistent Challenges

Despite constitutional guarantees and judicial activism, custodial violence continues due to:

• Police culture and impunity: A systemic tendency to extract confessions through force, coupled with weak accountability mechanisms. 
• Delayed justice: Trials of police officers accused of custodial violence often drag on, and conviction rates remain abysmally low. 
• Lack of independent investigation: Cases are often investigated by the same police force accused of committing the violence. 
• Overcrowded prisons and poor infrastructure: Contribute to conditions that enable abuse. 
• Fear of reprisal: Victims and their families are often reluctant to complain due to fear of further harassment. 

The Way Forward

To tackle custodial violence effectively, a multi-pronged approach is necessary:

• Enacting an anti-torture law: India needs a specific law criminalizing torture in custody, aligned with international standards. 
• Independent oversight: Establishing independent investigative agencies or judicial commissions to probe custodial deaths. 
• Police reforms: Modernizing training, emphasizing scientific investigation methods over coercion, and strengthening accountability. 
• Technology in custody: Use of CCTV cameras in police stations and mandatory recording of interrogations. 
• Strengthening NHRC and SHRCs: Providing them with greater autonomy, resources, and enforcement powers. 
• Victim compensation and rehabilitation: Expanding the scope of compensation, as recognized in Nilabati Behera, to cover rehabilitation of victims and their families. 

Conclusion

Custodial violence is not merely an abuse of authority; it is a direct assault on the constitutional promise of dignity, liberty, and equality. While India has a rich body of judicial pronouncements and statutory safeguards, the persistence of such violations reveals the gap between law and practice.

The judiciary has been proactive, but without systemic reforms in policing, accountability mechanisms, and legislative backing, custodial torture will remain a dark stain on Indian democracy. Ultimately, the credibility of the justice system depends on how well it protects the weakest and most vulnerable—those who, once in custody, are entirely at the mercy of the State.