Authored By: Skanda Sharan
Alliance University, Bangalore
Introduction:
The power to arrest and detain is among the most coercive functions of the state that is justified only by its duty to uphold the rule of law and protect individual liberty. When such powers cross limits and are extremely abused to an extent where it results in death in custody, it represents not merely a criminal act, but a clear betrayal of constitutional trust and a violation of its core values. The recent imposition of death penalty on police officials in the Sathankulam custodial torture case marks a rare moment of accountability in a system often criticised for its habitual lack of it.
The ‘Rarest of Rare’ doctrine, established during the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, lays down the procedure and conditions reasonable enough for awarding the death penalty, which in this case reflects the judiciary’s recognition of custodial torture as a crime that ignites moral outrage. however , this unfoldment also raises a deeper and uncomfortable question: does the imposition of the highest degree of punishment actually deter violence, or does it merely satisfy the enraged orders of the public at large?
While such judgments deserve the recognition for reaffirming that even state actors are not above the law, their practicality or effectiveness in preventing future offences remains doubtful. The persistence of custodial violence desptite such strong legal safeguards against it such as the recent Ajith Kumar custodial death case, suggests that the problem lies not in the absence of severe punishment, but in the inconsistency of its application.
This article argues that while the capital punishment in such cases where appropriate is both justified and necessary, the irregular application of the punishment undermines the effectiveness of its ability to instill fear in the minds of the ones who intend to get involved in such heinous offences. Therefore, the focus should shift from mere prescription of such harsh punishments to ensure their consistent and predictable application, alongside broader structural reforms that will totally evacuate the offence of custodial violence.
Legal Framework:
Before beginning with the analysis of death penalty in custodial torture cases, it is essential to understand the restrictive legal framework governing capital punishment in india. In Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, the Supreme Court significantly narrowed the scope of the death penalty by introducing the “rarest of rare” doctrine, to ensure that such degree of punishment remains only an exception rather than the norm. It emphasises that the death penalty is not to be imposed unquestionably, but only under circumstances where the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender deem a lesser punishment inadequate.
This principle was further explained in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, where the court introduced a notion of crimes that shake the “collective conscience” of society. In doing so, it also identified other factors such as manner of commission, the motive behind it, and the vulnerability of the victim as relevent considerations to determine whether or not a case falls within the ambit of the “rarest of rare” category. These judgments have given the doctrine the strength that is needed for it to be followed as mandated.
Within this framework, custodial torture is of a unique category of such offences, where it involves not only the commission of a grave offence, but also the abuse of state authority against a vulnerable individual. It is a legal paradox where the victim, deprived of their liberty and put in a position of complete helplessness, is subjected to extreme violence by the very personnel held responsible for their protection. Such circumstances not only escalate the severity of the offence but also raise serious concerns regarding the erosion of public trust in the criminal justice system. It is with these considerations in mind that courts may be justified in invoking the “rarest of rare” doctrine in cases of extreme custodial violence.
Custodial Violence and Enforcement Gaps:
Notwithstanding the existence of well established legal safeguards, Custodial Violence continues to capture the headlines from time to time. This clearly indicates a gap between the law and its enforcement. The Supreme Court, in D.K. Basu v. State of Bengal, explicitly recognised custodial torture and deaths as violations of the fundamental right to life under article 21 of the constitution, and laid down detailed procedures and guidelines that govern arrest and detention. These safeguards were intended to introduce transparency and accountability into police functioning, whereby also preventing abuse of power. However, the continued occurence of custodial deaths across the country suggest that the safeguards are not meeting the purpose for which they were created.
This disconnect from the procedure and the objective highlights a deeper institutional failure rather than a mere deficiency in legal norms. While the framework governing arrest and detention is, on paper, robust, its implementation remains inconsistent and ineffective. Instances of non-compliance with mandatory procedures such as failure to maintain arrest records, denial of access to legal counsel, and lack of timely medical examination, etc. continue to undermine the protections envisioned by the judiciary. The absence of strict consequences in reality, for such violations, further emboldens errant officials, creating an environment where accountability remains low.
Moreover, the problem is aggravated by systemic issues, including delays in investigation, reluctance to prosecute police personnel, and institutional bias within enforcement mechanisms. The low conviction rate of the accused as a result of these issues, entirely defeats the possibility of one additional successful contribution to the deterrent value to such crimes, allowing them to continue despite formal prohibitions.
In this context, it becomes evident that the challenge lies not in the absence of legal standards, but in the systemic failure to enforce them with consistency and rigor. Until and unless it is ensured that violations are met with swift and predictable consequences, even the most well-articulated legal protections could remain ineffective in preventing custodial violence.
The Sathankulam Case: A Rare Assertion of Accountability
The custodial deaths that occurred in Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu, marked one of the most disturbing instances of police brutality in the recent past, resulting in nationwide outrage and scrutiny of law enforcement practices. It so happened, in June 2020, during the pandemic, where the victims, on the allegation that their mobile shop was functioning past curfew, were subjected to prolonged custodial torture, ultimately resulting in their deaths. The brutality of the incident and the apparent abuse of authoritty on part of the police personnel, elevated the case beyond an instance of individual misconduct to a matter of state concern.
In its judgment, the court’s decision to impose the death penalty on the convicted police officials reflects a significant improvement from the historical reluctance to hold state actors criminally liable to the fullest extent of the law. By invoking the principles laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the court treated the case as falling within the “rarest of rare” category, highlighting the nature of the offence. The custodial setting, the vulnerability of the victims, and the abuse of state authority were all considered factors that were considered in determining the gravity of the crime, thereby justifying the imposition of capital punishment.
This judgment is prominent not just for the severity of the sentence imposed, but for its symbolic assertion that state authority does not grant immunity from the consequences of criminal offence. In a legal system often criticised for being biased towards its own agents, the decision highlights a rare moment where the principle of “equality before law” has been upheld.
However, while the judgment indicates a strong stance against custodial violence, it also raises questions about its far-reaching consequences. The exceptional case of accountability raises an assessment on whether it could be a turning point in addressing custodial violence, or whether it is a result of a decision heavily influenced by public outrage and demands. This question of conflict has the need to be addressed in order to evaluate the true impact of death penalty in such cases.
Other Instances of Custodial Violence in India:
The persistence of Custodial violence in India is not confined to isolated incidents, but is a series of cases that reveal a troubling pattern of abuse of power. Some of the other most prominent and recent cases are covered in this article to examine them, thereby providing valuable insights into the recurring nature of such incidents and contexts fro which they arise.
One of the most widely discussed cases remains the death of Father Stan Swamy, who died in judicial custody while awaiting trial. Although it differs in context from direct police torture, the case raised serious questions among the public regarding the treatment of detainees, access to medical care, and the general conditions of custody, creating more room for debate on custodial accountability.
Moreover, the Tuticorin custodial deaths case highlights the consequences of minor offences when handled by excessive force. Such incidents reveal a pattern where the use of coercion is normalised within closed spaces, where there is no immediate oversight.
The most recent of all, the Ajith Kumar custodial death case, is only to prove that the persistence of such crimes till date, is not affected by any measure to deter it. The circumstances surrounding the incident, including allegations of physical assault and procedural lapses, brought attention to the vulnerability of individuals in custody and the challenges in ensuring accountability.
These examples illustrate that custodial violence is a recurring phenomenon, a consequence of lack of oversight, and improper enforcements of legal safeguards. By carefully evaluating these cases, it becomes evident that addressing custodial violence needs not only legal restriction, but a meaningful commitment with the systemic conditions that create the opportunity for the continued occurrence of such violations.
The Deterrence Debate:
The justification for the imposition of death penalty for cases including but not limited to custodial torture, is often attached with its presumed deterrent effect. It is argued that the severity of capital punishment instills fear among potential ofenders, so that future instance of offences of such nature stay prevented. In the context of Custodial violence, this argument carries particular emphasis, as the exercise of unchecked authority necessitates strong legal hindrance. However, the effectiveness of such deterrence is questionable when compared to the realities of its enforcement. It raises a simple but fundamental question: whether the mere presence of severe punishment is sufficient for it to pose a significant deterring value against misconduct.
It is to be contended that the Deterrent force of criminal law does not solely arise from the existence of a harsh punishment but the certainty and swiftness in which it is imposed. An extreme penalty, when reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases can possess symbolic value, but its ability to regulate everyday behaviour remains limited. When such laws are inconsistently enforced, they produce sudden and brief reactions to it but water down in terms of their effectiveness in the long-term.
Furthermore, Custodial Violence is often institutionalized, influenced by rigid hierarchies, performance targets, and pressure from superiors, and a culture accepting use of forced methods. Consequentially, the decision to get involved in misconduct is more of a reflection of systemic pressure rather than a calculated risk. Therefore, the consistent enforcement of death penalty for such offences, alongside the addressal of such structural and procedural deficiencies will not only prevent custodial violence, but will also enable the state actors to operate with responsible autonomy, rather than grave acts under pressure.
Conclusion:
Custodial violence is shown to be one of the most serious violations of constitutional governance, slowly but steadily damaging the very existence of the rule of law and the fundamental right to life under article 21. The weight of the situation is not evaluated just by the murder of another individual, but coupled with a very uncomfortable fact that the offence is committed by none other than state representatives, whose primary responsibility is to maintain the law and order in the society and protect its citizens at any cost. This hence, becomes a matter of state accountability, which is a huge challenge to tackle, given that there is plenty of room for institutional bias in such cases.
The imposition of death penalty is one step toward ensuring that such abuse of state authority is terminated by instilling fear on any prospective offender. However the effectiveness of such punishment must be assessed beyond its symbolic value. As this article has argued throughout, the potential to deter future crimes is significantly weakened by its inconsistent application. Notwithstanding the legal safeguards and severe punishments, the continued occurrence of custodial violence indicates that the absence of predictable enforcement creates an opportunity to escape liability by claiming state immunity. The approach of “ henious offences shall be punished with including but not limited to death penalty” and in the “rarest of rare” cases, must shift to “heinous offences shall be punished by death penalty”.
Moreover, justice in cases of custodial violence cannot rest solely on the harshness of punishment imposed instances. It must be complimented by swift and impartial consequences, alongside structural reforms that create an environment state actors respect the rule of law and operate with integrity. Only then, in the non-occurrence of such serious offences will the country breathe relief and safety.
Reference(S):
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 (India).
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 (India).
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 (India).
Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1 (India).
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 (India).
India Const. art. 21.
Law Commission of India, Report No. 262: The Death Penalty (2015).
National Human Rights Commission, Custodial Deaths/Rapes in India (latest available report).
Death Penalty Awarded in Sathankulam Custodial Death Case, THE HINDU, Apr. 2026.
Amnesty International, India: Death Penalty for Police Officers Will Not End Custodial Torture (Apr. 2026), https://www.amnesty.org.
NITI Aayog, Discussion Paper on Police Reforms in India (Year), https://www.niti.gov.in.
National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India (latest available report).
CESARE BECCARIA, ON CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS (1764).
