Authored By: Shalman Barish.A
The Central Law College,Salem
Abstracts ;
Despite clear constitutional protections under Article 21 and established criminal laws, custodial torture and deaths remain a disturbing reality in Tamil Nadu. The 2020 Sathankulam case, where a father and son died in police custody, exposed glaring failures in enforcement and accountability. Since then, several similar incidents between 2020 and 2025 have highlighted how existing safeguards are often ignored or inadequately applied. This article explores the concept of custodial violence, examines recent case studies, and analyzes the challenges in implementing criminal law provisions. It also critiques the limited impact of the Supreme Court’s guidelines in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, which were meant to prevent such abuses. Judicial interventions have helped, but systemic reform is urgently needed. To build a rights-based and accountable criminal justice system in Tamil Nadu, the article recommends establishing independent police complaints authorities, enforcing mandatory CCTV surveillance in custody areas, and ensuring timely trials for custodial violence cases.
Keywords : Custodial violence, Article 21, Sathankulam case, D.K. Basu guidelines, police accountability, judicial reform.
Introduction;
Custodial violence in Tamil Nadu is a serious human rights issue, marked by repeated cases of torture and deaths in police custody. Despite constitutional protections, abuse continues due to weak accountability and systemic neglect. High-profile incidents like the Sathankulam case highlight the brutality and lack of justice for victims, often from marginalized communities. Investigations are frequently biased, and convictions are rare. To address this crisis, Tamil Nadu must enforce independent oversight, strengthen legal frameworks, and improve police training.
Upholding the dignity and rights of detainees is essential for restoring public trust and ensuring a just, humane criminal justice system.
Landmark Custodial Death Cases and Judicial Responses in India;
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
This is one of the most important and pioneering cases in the domain of custodial deaths and human rights in India. Suman Lal Behera died under suspicious circumstances while in police custody. His mother, Nilabati Behera, filed a petition before the Supreme Court, which took suo motu cognizance of the issue. The Court ruled that the State was strictly liable for the custodial death, due to its failure to protect the life and liberty of the detainee. The Court awarded the mother substantial monetary compensation (₹1,50,000), recognizing compensation as a constitutional remedy for violation of fundamental rights under Article 21. The case set a precedent for State accountability and compensation in custodial deaths and highlighted the vulnerability of detainees in custody requiring higher protectioni.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
This landmark judgment established detailed guidelines to be followed by law enforcement agencies during arrest and detention to prevent custodial torture and deaths. It mandated:
I. Police must prepare and send arrest memos to relatives or friends of the detainee.
II. Detainees must be medically examined upon arrest and during custody.
III. Police officers involved in arrest and interrogation should be clearly identified.
IV. Production of detainees before magistrates must occur within 24 hours.
These guidelines have been reiterated in subsequent judgments but are often not implemented effectively, contributing to ongoing custodial abusesii.
Sathankulam Custodial Deaths (2020, Tamil Nadu)
The deaths of P. Jeyaraj and Bennicks, a father-son duo tortured in Sathankulam police custody for allegedly violating COVID-19 lockdown rules, brought national and international attention to custodial violence in Tamil Nadu. Bennicks died on 22 June 2020 and Jayaraj the next day, after severe torture lasting hours in custody. Despite DNA evidence and eyewitness accounts, the case has faced delayed prosecution. The investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and several police officials were charged, but justice remains slow. The case highlighted structural policing problems and impunity within the Tamil Nadu policeiii.
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994)
The Supreme Court emphasized the protection of fundamental rights for arrested persons and formulated procedural safeguards related to arrest and detention, building upon the principles laid down in D.K. Basu. It strengthened the framework aimed at preventing unlawful detention leading to custodial violenceiv.
Udayakumar Custodial Death Case (2005, Kerala)
Udayakumar was allegedly tortured and murdered by the police after being arrested on suspicion of theft. The case received widespread attention as a rare instance where police officers were held criminally liable for custodial murder. In 2018, two policemen were sentenced to death by a CBI special court, reflecting judicial readiness to punish custodial violence in serious casesv.
Ajith Kumar Custodial Death (2025, Tamil Nadu)
In this recent case, Ajith Kumar died in custody with over 40 injury marks, including evidence of severe torture. The Madurai High Court recognized the custodial killing, ordering the CBI to take over the investigation. Several police officers were arrested and suspended, highlighting both systemic problems and judicial intervention aiming to uphold accountabilityvi.
Rajkumar Custodial Death (2019, Kerala)
Rajkumar died after alleged custodial torture in a financial crime case. The case raised questions about the extent of custodial torture and accountability mechanisms. The judiciary continues to stress the need for fair treatment and independent investigations in such casesvii.
Judicial Trends and Reforms;
Indian courts have increasingly held the State strictly liable for custodial deaths and violations of fundamental rights, rejecting claims of sovereign immunity.
Compensation is recognized as an important constitutional remedy, providing relief to victims’ families.
Courts have laid down procedural safeguards for arrest, detention, and interrogation but have repeatedly called for stricter enforcement.
Independent investigations by agencies like CBI are often directed in sensitive custodial death cases to ensure impartial justice.
The need for legislative reforms and enforcement of police accountability mechanisms is a consistent theme in landmark judgments.
Challenges in Criminal Law;
1)Lack of Specific Legislation: Tamil Nadu, like much of India, lacks a dedicated law explicitly criminalizing custodial torture and deaths, leading to reliance on generic laws like sections of the Indian Penal Code which are less effective in timely investigations and punishmentsviii.
2)Delayed and Opaque Investigations: Investigations into custodial deaths often suffer from delays, limited transparency, and limited accountability as they are mostly handled by police departments themselves without independent oversightix.
3)Non-Compliance to Supreme Court Guidelines: Despite the 2014 Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar judgment limiting unnecessary arrests to prevent custodial violence, implementation remains weak, with arrests often unjustified and custodial torture normalizedx.
4)Cultural Acceptance of Torture: Surveys show that 91% of Tamil Nadu police officials believe custodial torture is sometimes necessary, reflecting the entrenched culture of violence in policing practicesxi.
Recommended and Ongoing Reforms;
1)Enactment of Specific Anti-Custodial Violence Laws:
The Fifth Tamil Nadu Police Commission has urged the state government for comprehensive laws explicitly criminalizing custodial torture and deaths, mandating time-bound investigations and strict punishments. There are calls for a special legislation to ensure swift, transparent criminal prosecution and compensate victims and their families.
2)Enforcement of Supreme Court Guidelines:
Strict adherence to Arnesh Kumar guidelines requiring justification for all arrests to reduce unnecessary detentions and prevent custodial abuses.
3)Mandatory Medical Safeguards:
The commission recommends compulsory medical examinations of detainees at the time of arrest and throughout custody to identify and prevent torture or health deterioration.
4)Improved Surveillance and Custodial Monitoring:
Deployment of sufficient police staff to monitor detainees constantly and installation of tamper proof CCTV cameras in all detention areas with regular audits to deter abuse.
5)Police Welfare and Training:
A large gap exists in officer mental health and ethics training. Reallocation of at least 5% of the policing budget toward creating mental health units, mandatory counseling, and trauma informed policing training is recommended to curb violent tendencies rooted in stress and burnout.
6)Independent Oversight Bodies:
Strengthening the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission and creating independent citizen oversight committees to monitor custodial conditions and police conduct.
7)Cultural Change in Policing:
Police uniforms and internal recognition should shift toward celebrating empathy and human rights adherence, moving away from glorifying “strongarm tactics.”
Conclusion;
Custodial violence remains one of the most troubling blind spots in Tamil Nadu’s criminal justice system. Despite constitutional protections and judicial guidelines, the absence of a dedicated law against custodial torture has allowed abuse to persist behind closed doors. Investigations are often slow, opaque, and handled by the very institutions accused of wrongdoing, making justice elusive for victims and their families.
The reforms proposed—from enacting specific legislation to improving medical safeguards and surveillance—are not just bureaucratic fixes. They represent a shift toward accountability, transparency, and a policing culture rooted in empathy rather than intimidation. Training officers in mental health and ethics, strengthening independent oversight, and changing how we reward and recognize police conduct are all steps toward building a system that respects human dignity.
Real change will require more than policy—it demands political will, public pressure, and a cultural transformation within law enforcement. Tamil Nadu has the opportunity to lead by example, showing that justice is not just about punishing crime, but about protecting the rights of every individual, especially those in custody. Only then can we begin to restore trust in the system and ensure that the law serves all, not just the powerful.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
i NilabaƟ Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746, AIR 1993 SC 1960 (1993) (per Verma, J.) (India). ii D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, AIR 1997 SC 610 (1996) (per Anand, J.) (India).
iii Sathankulam Custodial Deaths (CBI v. Senthil Kumar & Others, InvesƟgaƟon pending, Trial Court, Madurai, 2020
iv Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260, AIR 1994 SC 1349 (1994) (per Kuldip Singh, J.) (India). v Udayakumar v. State of Kerala, (2018) 2 KLT 262 (2018) (India).
vi Ajith Kumar Custodial Death (CBI v. Unknown, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, WP (MD) No.17975 of 2025)
vii Sandeep Thomas, Rajkumar Died of Brutal Torture: Judicial Panel, Times of India (Jan. 8, 2021), hƩps://Ɵmesofindia.indiaƟmes.com/city/kochi/rajkumar-died-of-brutal-torture-judicial panel/arƟcleshow/80159452.cms.
viii John Doe, Custodial Brutality in Tamil Nadu: Urgent Call for Criminal JusƟce Reform (date), Vishnu IAS Academy, hƩps://vishnuias.com/custodial-brutality-in-tamil-nadu/.
ix John Doe, Custodial Brutality in Tamil Nadu: Urgent Call for Criminal JusƟce Reform (date), Vishnu IAS Academy, hƩps://vishnuias.com/custodial-brutality-in-tamil-nadu/.
x Usthadian Academy, FiŌh Tamil Nadu Police Commission Highlights Custodial Reforms, Usthadian (July 13, 2025), ), hƩps://www.usthadian.com/fiŌh-tamil-nadu-police-commission-highlights-custodial reforms/
xiUsthadian Academy, FiŌh Tamil Nadu Police Commission Highlights Custodial Reforms, Usthadian (July 13, 2025), hƩps://www.usthadian.com/fiŌh-tamil-nadu-police-commission-highlights-custodial-reforms/.
