Custodial Deaths in India – A Legal and Humanitarian Study

Introduction

Custodial death—death of a person while under police or judicial custody—remains one of the most pressing human rights concerns in India. Despite constitutional guarantees and statutory safeguards, reports of custodial torture and fatalities continue to surface, raising serious questions about accountability, transparency, and justice. This article examines the current status of custodial deaths in India, the legal framework surrounding them, and the judicial response shaping this discourse.

The Constitutional and Legal Safeguards

1. Constitutional Protections

• Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.

• Article 22: Safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention.

• Article 20(3): Protection against self-incrimination.

2. Statutory Provisions

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) , 1973: Mandates medical examination of accused, production before magistrate within 24 hours, and safeguards during interrogation.

• Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita: Sections 120(1) & 120(2) criminalize torture to extract confession.

• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 1872: Section 23(1) renders confessions to police inadmissible, thereby discouraging coercive methods.

3. International Commitments

India has signed the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) but not ratified it, leaving a significant gap in legal accountability.

Judicial Pronouncements

The judiciary has played a pivotal role in expanding the scope of rights of detainees:

• DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): Laid down 11 guidelines for arrest and detention, including the right of relatives to be informed, medical examination, and legal counsel.

• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993): Recognized state liability and granted compensation for custodial death.

• Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006): Recommended police reforms to curb abuse of power.

  
  

Despite these progressive judgments, implementation remains weak.

Current Status and Statistics

According to data from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB):

• Between 2017–2022, India recorded thousands of custodial deaths, averaging several hundred annually.

• The NHRC has consistently noted delays in reporting custodial deaths, lack of independent investigation, and systemic failures in accountability.

• Many cases result in internal departmental inquiries rather than independent judicial probes, leading to low conviction rates.

Challenges in Addressing Custodial Deaths

• Lack of Accountability: Investigations often conducted by the same department accused of misconduct.

• Police Culture of Impunity: Over-reliance on confessions and “third-degree” methods.

• Delays in Prosecution: Lengthy trials and weak prosecution discourage victims’ families.

• Absence of Anti-Torture Law: India’s non-ratification of UNCAT weakens international oversight.

  
  

Reforms and Way Forward

1. Independent Investigations: Establishing bodies outside police hierarchy to investigate custodial deaths.

2. Ratification of UNCAT: Enacting a comprehensive anti-torture law.

3. Police Reforms: Implementation of Prakash Singh directives, including fixed tenure, separation of investigation and law & order wings, and accountability mechanisms.

4. Judicial Oversight: Strengthening role of magistrates in monitoring arrests and custody.

5. Technology and Transparency: Use of CCTV in police stations, body cameras, and digital documentation of arrests.

Conclusion:

Custodial deaths represent a grave violation of the right to life and dignity. While India’s legal framework provides significant safeguards, the gap lies in enforcement and accountability. Judicial interventions and human rights activism have pushed the discourse forward, but without systemic reforms and political will, custodial torture will continue to cast a dark shadow over India’s justice system.