Authored By: Yashvi Gupta
IIMT UNIVERSITY MEERUT
Why the Issue Remains Urgent
Custodial violence continues to be one of the most pressing concerns within India’s criminal justice system. Recently, the Supreme Court of India revisited the issue while expressing dissatisfaction over the poor implementation of its earlier directions mandating CCTV cameras in police stations and investigative agency offices. This concern was intensified by reports of multiple custodial deaths, including 11 deaths within a span of eight months in Rajasthan.
In the landmark judgment of Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, the Court had directed the installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations as a preventive measure against custodial torture. These directions were further extended to central agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, Enforcement Directorate, and other bodies with powers of arrest and interrogation. The Court emphasized that such safeguards are essential to protect the fundamental rights to life and dignity.
Despite these directives, custodial violence continues to persist, raising serious questions about the effectiveness of legal safeguards and institutional accountability in India.
Meaning and Scope of Custodial Violence
Custodial violence broadly refers to any form of physical or mental harm inflicted upon an individual while they are under the custody of law enforcement authorities. Although Indian law does not provide a precise statutory definition, the concept includes acts such as torture, assault, harassment, humiliation, sexual abuse, and even deaths occurring in custody.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, custody is classified into two types: police custody and judicial custody. Police custody allows detention for interrogation for a limited period, while judicial custody involves detention in prison under the supervision of the judiciary. Regardless of the type, any form of violence inflicted during custody constitutes a violation of fundamental rights.
Custodial violence is not limited to physical torture; it also includes psychological abuse, threats, denial of basic needs, and coercion to extract confessions. Such practices undermine the very foundation of justice and erode public trust in law enforcement institutions.
Historical Evolution of Custodial Practices in India
The persistence of custodial violence in India cannot be understood without examining its historical roots. In ancient India, texts such as the Arthashastra described the use of harsh punishments, including physical torture, as tools of governance and law enforcement. During the medieval period, particularly under Mughal rule, corporal punishments continued to be widely practiced under prevailing legal systems.
The colonial era marked a significant institutionalization of coercive policing. The Police Act 1861 was enacted primarily to maintain control over the population rather than to serve citizens. Similarly, the Prisons Act 1894 granted extensive powers to prison authorities with minimal oversight. These laws were designed to suppress dissent and maintain order through force.
After independence, India largely retained these colonial structures with minimal reform. As a result, the mindset of coercion and control continued to influence policing practices. The lack of structural transformation has allowed custodial violence to persist as a systemic issue rather than an isolated problem.
Magnitude of the Problem
The scale of custodial violence in India is alarming. According to data from the National Human Rights Commission, thousands of custodial deaths are reported every year. For instance, in 2023–2024 alone, there were over 2,300 reported deaths in judicial custody and around 160 deaths in police custody.
These figures highlight not only the prevalence of custodial violence but also the gaps in accountability mechanisms. Many cases go unreported due to fear, lack of awareness, or institutional pressure. Even when cases are reported, convictions are rare, further reinforcing a culture of impunity.
Legal and Constitutional Framework
Constitutional Safeguards
The Indian Constitution provides strong protections against custodial violence. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted by courts to include the right to live with dignity and freedom from torture. Articles 20(1) and 20(3) further protect individuals from excessive punishment and self-incrimination, ensuring that confessions cannot be obtained through coercion.
Statutory Provisions
Several statutory provisions also address custodial abuse. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 penalizes acts of causing hurt or grievous hurt to extract confessions. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 ensures that confessions obtained through coercion or inducement are inadmissible in court.
Judicial Interventions
The judiciary has played a crucial role in addressing custodial violence. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines for arrest and detention, including the requirement to inform relatives, maintain arrest records, and conduct medical examinations.
These judicial pronouncements have significantly contributed to the development of safeguards against custodial abuse, although their implementation remains inconsistent.
International Legal Obligations
India is also bound by international human rights standards. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Similarly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by India, mandates humane treatment of individuals in custody.
However, India has signed but not yet ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The absence of ratification has limited the development of a comprehensive domestic legal framework specifically addressing torture.
Challenges in Addressing Custodial Violence
Despite multiple safeguards, several challenges hinder effective control of custodial violence:
- Absence of a Clear Legal Definition
India lacks a specific law defining and criminalizing torture. This creates ambiguity and makes prosecution difficult.
- Weak Accountability Mechanisms
Legal provisions often require prior government sanction to prosecute public officials, which delays or prevents action. Investigations into custodial deaths are frequently conducted by the same agencies accused of misconduct.
- Colonial Policing Mindset
The policing system still reflects colonial attitudes where force is seen as a legitimate tool for maintaining order. This mindset encourages the use of third-degree methods during interrogation
- Lack of Training and Resources
Many police personnel lack training in scientific investigation techniques and rely on coercion to extract information. The absence of modern forensic infrastructure further aggravates the problem.
- Delayed Justice and Weak Oversight
Judicial delays, ineffective magisterial inquiries, and the advisory nature of oversight bodies such as the NHRC weaken enforcement. Even judicial directives, such as CCTV installation, suffer from poor compliance.
- Social and Political Factors
Public support for “tough policing” and political interference often justify or overlook custodial violence. This societal acceptance makes reform more difficult.
Measures to Curb Custodial Violence
Addressing custodial violence requires a comprehensive and multi-dimensional approach:
- Enactment of Anti-Torture Legislation
India must enact a specific law defining and criminalizing custodial torture. Ratifying the United Nations Convention Against Torture would align domestic laws with international standards and strengthen accountability.
- Strengthening Transparency Through Technology
The installation of CCTV cameras, maintenance of digital arrest records, and use of systems like CCTNS can enhance transparency and reduce opportunities for abuse.
- Police Reforms and Training
Training programs focusing on human rights, forensic science, and non-coercive interrogation methods should be implemented. Ethical policing must be emphasized at all levels.
- Independent Investigation Mechanisms
Custodial violence cases should be investigated by independent agencies rather than the police themselves to ensure impartiality.
Critical Analysis
Custodial violence in India reflects a deeper structural problem within the criminal justice system. While laws and judicial guidelines exist, their implementation remains weak due to institutional inertia and lack of accountability. The persistence of colonial-era laws and policing practices highlights the need for systemic reform rather than isolated measures.
Moreover, the absence of a dedicated anti-torture law indicates a gap between India’s constitutional ideals and ground realities. The reluctance to ratify international conventions further underscores this contradiction. Without strong political will and administrative commitment, custodial violence is likely to continue despite judicial interventions.
At the same time, technological solutions such as CCTV surveillance, while helpful, cannot replace the need for ethical policing and institutional accountability. True reform requires a shift in mindset from coercion to rights-based policing.
Conclusion
Custodial violence remains a significant challenge to the rule of law and human rights in India. Despite constitutional guarantees, statutory provisions, and judicial safeguards, the problem persists due to weak enforcement, lack of accountability, and outdated institutional structures.
Addressing this issue requires a combination of legal reform, institutional strengthening, and societal change. Enacting a comprehensive anti-torture law, improving transparency, and promoting human rights awareness are essential steps toward ensuring justice and dignity for all individuals.
Ultimately, a criminal justice system that relies on coercion rather than fairness cannot command public trust. Upholding human dignity must remain at the core of law enforcement in a democratic society.
