Introduction To Custodial Deaths In India
The issue of custodial deaths in India has recently been noticed as a burning issue within the criminal justice system in India, as it refers to persons dying while in the custody either with the police or with the judiciary. Put in simpler words, custodial death within the Indian context refers to the death of any person while in the custody of the police during the process of being arrested or during a police interrogation in a police lock-up and jail either due to torture by the police, lack of proper medical attention for a serious medical ailment within the jail, psychological torture leading to-suicidal conduct and activities within the custody of the police, or engineered encounter killings. There are two kinds of custodial deaths that occur within India. The first kind of death occurs as a result of a police custodial death that occurs within the custody of the police within a maximum frame of 24-48 hours after being arrested. The second kind of custodial death occurs within jail custody due to either jail overcrowding and lack of proper medical facilities within jail due to inadequate treatment for a medical ailment.
The problem of custodial deaths in the Indian situation is of grave concern in regard to human rights violations, thus significantly contravening the proposed ambit of the “right to life and liberty” guaranteed through Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Globally, the problem of “custodial deaths” in the Indian situation violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” regarding the “prohibition of torture and the prohibition of arbitrary execution”. Custodial deaths in a way reflect the erosion of the “rule of law” in the Indian situation, with the security forces having carte blanche in operation, thereby creating a situation in which “fake encounters” or “extra-constitutional executions” are judicially sanctioned in alternative ways in the “Indian Society” for the marginalized sections of people, such as “Dalits/Adivasis/Muslims and the economically poor”. In this regard, the problem of “custodial deaths” in the Indian situation refers to a “serious deficiency in the policing system in the Indian Society” with a “built-in bias in the investigation mechanism of custodial deaths in the Indian Society”. In this regard, in the Indian situation, the “conviction rate of the police in custodial death cases is abysmally low”.
There have been rising cases of custodial deaths in India, which have been reflected in statistics put out by NHRC and NCRB, painting a grim picture of escalation. As per data compiled from NHRC, the number of custodial deaths in India has risen to 2,739 in 2024, which is a substantial jump from 2,400 in 2023, along the same continuation from past years in which more than 11,656 instances have been recorded between 2016-2022. For deaths under police custody, NHRC reported 175 deaths in 2021-2022, 168 deaths in 2022-2023, 160 deaths in 2023-2024, which roughly places the estimate for 2025 at 110 deaths under police custody and 1,650 deaths in total, inclusive of judicial custody, which assumes a certain trend and 10% escalation as seen in recent reports. Moreover, Uttar Pradesh holds the top position in regard to custodial deaths in the entire Indian population, which has recorded more than 2,630 deaths in recent years.
It is followed by states like Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu, which account for 71% of victims from 1996 to 2018. The number is more alarming in the case of judicial custody deaths, with 1,995 deaths reported in 2022, of which 159 were unnatural, and 1,372 as of August 2024, largely due to overcrowding-prisons running at 130-150% of their capacity-and neglect. The increase in custodial deaths in India has triggered mass outrage among the public, which is manifesting as protests, social media campaigns, and calls for reform. High-profile cases, such as the alleged torture leading to deaths in Uttar Pradesh’s “encounter killings” or the 2020 custodial deaths of Jayaraj and Bennix in Tamil Nadu, have triggered national debates, with civil society organizations condemning the lack of accountability – zero conviction for 1,107 police custodial deaths between 2011 and 2022, and only one of 281 in 2023 receiving relief from NHRC. The Global Torture Index 2025 red-flagged India as a “high-risk” country for such abuses, saying custodial deaths in India disproportionately affect human rights defenders, with at least 61 detained under draconian laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive study on the status of the issue of custodial deaths in the Indian sub-continent with a focus on the existing trends in the matter, the legal norms in the form of the guidelines given by the NHRC, the guidelines of the Supreme Court case in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal in 1997 regarding the need for arrest memoranda and health check-ups in the matter. The need for a ongoing research study on the existing status of the issue of the custodial deaths in the Indian sub-continent is with the aforesaid purpose of highlighting the burning need for the emergence of a new age of reforms that translate into an end to torture, an end to a lack of transparency and a lack of confidence in the force of laws. The need for an ending approach towards the issue of the existing crisis in the form of the matter of the custodial deaths in the Indian sub-continent is rendered necessary in order to address the issue from a national as well as an international platform in order to provide protection for the fundamental right to life.
Meaning and Concept of Custodial Death
What Is a Custodial Death?
The meaning of custodial death in the Indian context is the death of the person who is in the custody of the state, and this includes the law and enforcement agents and the prison administration. The scope of the definition of custodial death, in its literal and legal terms, encompasses any death occasioned by the loss of liberty of the person who finds himself in the custody of the state because of being either arrested, detained, or imprisoned.
Indian custodial deaths are categorized into three main types:
Police Custody Deaths:
This death occurs after one has been arrested, and it takes place within the first 24-48 hours of incarceration. One can easily access a suspect during custody for the purpose of conducting interrogations due to an increased risk association with exploitation.Custody deaths are common, especially as a result of torture allegations on the third degree for gaining a confession.
Judicial Custody Deaths:
This happens in the prison or cells, as the person is under judicial custody, as ordered by the magistrate. The number of deaths in judicial custody is considerably high due to lengthy imprisonment, prison overcrowding (sometimes 130-150% capacity), unhygienic conditions, poor health facilities, violence, or suicidal acts. There have been reports lately about judicial custody accounting for the predominant number of deaths in custody in the Indian state.Deaths in illegal detention or other authority custody: This includes unreported or illegal detention, which does not result in arrest, or situations involving the military or paramilitaries in conflict areas. These are mostly out of jurisdiction.
The implications of custody deaths include broader meanings than merely “natural causes,” such as illness and old age, as defined within the Indian context. Even when such deaths occur due to pre-existing ailments, many others occur due to torture, violence, psychological pressures that lead to suicide, lapses such as withholding medical attention, and provoked encounter killings. The National Human Rights Commission requires all such custody deaths, whether natural or unnatural, to be reported to it within 24 hours, followed by a magistrate-level probe and video recordings at the time of autopsy to identify any forced custodial death in india
The importance of custodial death, however, lies in the fact that as soon as one goes into custody, all the duties related to his or her safety shift to the state entirely. The death that occurs, therefore, causes reasonable suspicion of infringement of the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, that is, the “right to life and liberty.” The recent statistics establish how grave the problem is, as NHRC found that there have been about 2,739 Custodial Death cases in India in 2024, including 160 in police custody, down from 2,400 in 2023 and over 11,650 between 2016 and 2022. Such a number substantiates why “custodial death in India is one of the foremost human rights concerns of the country, as it disproportionately impacts the poor, the Dalit, Adivasi, and minority communities.”
In addition to this, the issue of custodial death is connected to other issues like impunity, with thousands of cases but few, if any, convictions having occurred. The concept of custodial death in India and its diverse aspects make it possible to discuss this particular issue not merely from a statistical perspective but with a focus on a real failure within the justice system to safeguard those under its protection. The necessary changes within India to address custodial deaths would be comprehensive and involve, but not be limited to,
Legal Framework Governing Custodial Deaths
“The judicial setup, as prevalent under the heading of custodial deaths in India, rests upon the Constitutions and supplementary legislation under the Criminal Code,” and this often remains ineffective in holding back the irregularities in performances. At the base level is the Constitution of India’s “Article 21, imbibing the principles of the right to life and liberty.” This is also interpreted to cover the aspect of “torture and ill-treatment under Article 21, with the aid of Article 22.” This also ensures “protection against arbitrary arrest, with the provision to notify the accused regarding the arrest and to produce him before the magistracy within the time frame of 24 hours under Article 22(4).” Then comes “Article 20(3) to prevent the accused from making any self-incrimination to forewarn against coercive manners of interrogation.” And at the final level comes “Article 14 to ensure equality before the law, and this runs contrary to discriminatory justice.”
The BNS 2023, ostensibly operating to replace the Indian Penal Code, offers punitive provisions for offenses leading to custodial deaths. Causing hurt and grievous hurt for the purpose of extorting confession is made an offense under Sections 330 and 331 of the Act, respectively, with a punishment of up to a maximum 10 years of imprisonment. Section 302 defines murder and Section 304, where the offense is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, in the case of fatal beatings. The CrPC required that every custodial death case be investigated by a judicial magistrate under Section 176(1A), and it came from changes in executive inquiries with a focus on impartiality. Again, Section 41 provides conditions for arrest without a warrant, with the reasonable and proportionate principle underlying it.
The BSA 2023, instead of the Indian Evidence Act, has been incorporated with Section 114-B, presuming all injuries sustained inside the lock-up to be caused by policemen unless otherwise proven. In this regard, there is also the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, wherein an NHRC has been established with the ability to probe cases related to violations inside custody and provide compensation or punishment recommendations accordingly. These guidelines require that all cases pertaining to custodial death require notification within 24 hours, preparation of the autopsies by independent pathologists, and autopsies recorded via videography.
This framework has been reinforced by judicial decisions. With regard to arrest, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of D.K. Basu v. State ofWest Bengal (1997), held that there must be 11 guidelines, including medical examination, notice to relatives, and maintaining memos regarding the detention that if violated, shall constitute contempt of court. With regard to cases of custody deaths, the court held, inNilabati Behera v. State ofOrissa (1993), that it is the liability of states.
Compensation under Article 32 for violation of fundamental rights awarding. Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1994 restricted routine arrests by requiring justification. Very recently, in Paramvir Singh Saini v. State of Punjab, 2020, the Court ordered that at each police station, CCTV cameras with night vision and audio, along with oversight committees would be connected through interlinking. In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2016, the courts addressed concerns about overcrowding and neglect in judicial custody.
Constitutional Provisions Regarding Custodial Deaths in India
The Indian Constitution has a potent guarantee regarding deaths in custody, which instills basic safeguards against the potential gross violation of the authority used by State agencies in making an arrest, detention, or holding a person in custody. This entails a basic obligation to protect life and liberty, which in itself represents a violation of the basic rights regarding deaths in custody in a country like India.
Article 21 and the Right to Life
The Indian Constitutional provision, under Article 21, states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or person save in accordance with the procedure established by law,” which originally received a restricted meaning, but the Indian Supreme Court has expansively defined the same to encompass the right to life with dignity, without torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. “Custodial violence, torture resulting in death, is violative of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,” because the “State assumes an absolutist role regarding the safety of the person under its custody, and consequently, any harm or death in custody ipso facto suggests criminal intention of the State.”
With such judicial statements of pioneering effect, Article 21 has been extrapolated to include protection against torture and decent treatment or either of them. In cases such as Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981), it was submitted that right to life also includes right to live with dignity. This was reaffirmed in yet another pioneering case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), in which the concept of Article 21 was again called into question in view of incidents of custodial deaths in Indian jails. The Court held that any kind of torture is an insult to human dignity and violative of Article 21. In effect, it laid down 11 Guidelines regarding arrest and detention.
In addition, in the case of Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa, in 1993, compensation was provided by the court in a case involving custodial death, thus reconfirming state responsibility for violating the guarantee under Article 21. Such judgments have made Article 21 a powerful tool in the war against custodial deaths in India, which state that the procedures will be “just, fair, and reasonable” and reiterated in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India in 1978. However, the case of custodial deaths in India is yet to be eliminated.
Articles 20 and 22 – Protection for Arrested Persons
The Constitution also provides some guarantees to the arrested person itself, which are mentioned in Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution and have been of pivotal significance in suppressing instances of death in custody in India
Article 20(3): “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This is a prohibition of the use of torture or “third degree methods of interrogation,” as a source of custody-related violence and death. “Forced confessions extruded from prisoners by brute force shall not be receivable and contravene this right,” as held in cases excoriating coercive interrogation.
Article 22 sets out direct guarantees against illegal arrest and detention as follows:
Clause (1): The arrested person has to be informed about reasons for arrest. In addition, the person has a right to consult and be represented by a defense attorney of his/her own choice. Clause (2): “Every person arrested shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours, reckoning from the time of arrest, excluding the time spent on transit.”
The aim of these is to ensure there is some level of transparency as well as judicial supervision from the moment of arrest, thereby curtailing the possibilities of torture while in police custody. Traditionally, a violation of Article 22 precedes custodial deaths in India.
While Articles 20 and 22 supplement Article 21, together they form a formidable deterrent against custodial deaths. The Supreme Court has interpreted time and again that a breach of this article, read along with the ancillary provisions, invites applications of absolute or strict liability. Surprisingly, despite all these claims, custodial deaths remained a problem in India.The clear understanding of such provisions of the Indian constitution goes a long way in trying to provide a solution to custodial deaths in India because for one it lays down certain immoveable minimums that are expected of prison authorities in order to handle prisoners in a manner that is not inhumane.
Statutory Legal Framework Governing Custodial Deaths in India
The legal system regarding custody death in India primarily relies on the Indian Penal Code of 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973. These laws collectively impose criminal liability on government functionaries and procedural protection to prevent misuse of authority in arrest, detention, and interrogation.
IPC Provisions
Section 299 & Section 300– Culpable Homicide and Murder
Sections 299-300 of the IPC provide the substantive provision for an offence of custody deaths. Being an act resulting in death due to an act committed by a Police/Prison official with ‘knowledge’/ ‘intention’, likely resulting in death, it shall amount to culpable homicide and/or murder, as the case may be, depending on the grade of ‘mens rea’ present in the offence.
Custodial power is not an attenuator of criminal liability, but abuse of the power aggravates the liability according to criminal law.
Sections 330 & 331 – Causing Hurt to Extend Confession
Though Section 330 is specific to voluntarily causing hurt to an accused or arrested person for the purpose of extortion of confession and information from him, Section 331 is also specific to voluntarily causing grievous hurt for the same purpose. In fact, these sections clearly address custodial violence. Forced confessions undermine the foundation of liberty and, in fact, destroy the whole criminal jurisprudence system; thus, the increased punishment under Section 331 is an acknowledgment on the part of the legislature of the gravity of this act.
Sections 34 & 120B –Joint Liability and Criminal Conspiracy
Arresting and custodial deaths are usually not single-handed actions on the part of the concerned officials. Section 34 of IPC provides joint liability in doing an act in furtherance of common intention, and section 120B provides punishment for criminal conspiracy. These sections provide that it is not only necessary to punish the wrongdoer but all of them who have colluded in doing so, which is a situation when an accused will not be penalized even if his or her co-accused remain uncharged.
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Safeguards
Sections 41 & 41A – Arrest Procedures
Arresting and custodial deaths are usually not single-handed actions on the part of the concerned officials. Section 34 of the IPC provides joint liability in doing an act in furtherance of common intention, while section 120B provides punishment for criminal conspiracy. These sections thus provide that it is not only necessary to punish the wrongdoer but all of them who have colluded in doing so, which is a situation when an accused will not be penalized even if his or her co-accused remain uncharged.
Section 50 – Reasons for Arrestation
Section 50 provides: “The person arrested shall be informed of the cause of the arrest and of the right to seek bail.” Informed detention, therefore, brings the question of detention into focus at an early stage, and this is a key factor in the prevention of torture.
Section 54 – Medical Examination of the Accused
The section 54 CrPC is an enabling provision for the arrested to have medical examination and becomes a medical proof that prevents the possibility of torture of the arrested in custody by the police. “Medical reports become conclusive evidence in cases relating to violence and deaths in police custody.”
Section 176(1A) – Mandatory Judicial Inquiry
Section 176(1A) thus provided for a magisterial inquiry in cases of custodial deaths and disappearance and rape. This remains one of the most crucial methods that accountability could be secured; indeed, it provides for independent investigation of these issues, which go a long way in instilling confidence in the rule of law.
Taken together, all of the above legal commitments constitute the definitive framework that Indian law has provided regarding custodial deaths, for these are in complete adherence to the constitutional values of life and dignity. Its effective practice is an issue, but its definitive intent definitely is to regard the practice as a criminal activity and not a manifestation within operations.
Role of Judiciary in Addressing Custodial Deaths
Landmark Supreme Court Judgments
The Indian judiciary has had an extremely critical role in molding accountability frameworks in relation to custodial violence and deaths. The Supreme Court of India has expanded, through judicial innovation based upon constitutional interpretation, the ambit of fundamental rights relating to Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution in order to reinforce safeguards against custodial abuse. The judicial response to custodial deaths in India is thus testimony to rights-centric and accountability-sensitive jurisprudence.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) – Arrest Guidelines
In the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines regarding arrest and detention to limit custodial torture and death. Holding violent custodial activities to amount to an infringement or disregard for human dignity, it directed that arrest memorandum writing, arrestee medical check-up, notice to family or friends, and records to be kept in cases of detention are to be met. These later became part of the Criminal Procedure Code, so as to make these binding and shift from preventive jurisprudence to legal norms.
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) – Compensation For Custodial Death
The judgment in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa was thus a significant milestone away from the traditional private law remedies, affirming constitutional compensation in cases of custodial death. The Court held that the State’s undertaking for t violations of the right to life under Article 21 is undoubtedly strict liability, even when such violations occur through its agents. Significantly, the Court explained that monetary compensation awarded under writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for criminal prosecution but an additional public law remedy to redress grave constitutional wrongs.
Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) – Police Reforms
In *Prakash Singh vs. Union of India*, the issue of structural causes of custodial abuse was dealt with by structuring major reforms in police forces. The court emphasized making police functions immune to any form of political influence, creating Police Complaints Authorities, and achieving functional autonomy accompanied by accountability. These issues were aimed at changing the police culture from custodial control to service delivery law enforcement and, in turn, decreasing custodial violence and deaths.
Analytical Insight
Individually and collectively, these decisions illustrate the transition of the judiciary from post-facto adjudication towards systemic prevention and reform. By incorporating procedural protection, constitutional compensation, and systemic reform measures, the Supreme Court has asserted itself as a key player in reining in the excesses of custody while uptoholding the rule of law.
Accountability Mechanisms for Custodial Deaths in India
Holding persons accountable for such Custodial Death is thus the key for a strict adherence to a regime of governance based on the constitution. The mechanism for this aspect of holding persons accountable in the Indian constitution and its framework involves a system encompassing police, judiciary, and other independent bodies related to human rights.
Police accountability
Departmental inquiries
The first in-house mechanism, which gets triggered as a result of custody deaths, is that of the departmental inquiries/disciplinary cases. This entails an examination of any kind of misconduct, neglect, and disobedience of the service rules on the part of the police personnel. Though punitive in nature, these proceedings are very essential for administrative purposes within the paramilitary agencies like the police.
Criminal Prosecution Against the Police Officials
Besides, the police force members might also be prosecuted under certain sections of the IPC related to culpable homicide, murder, and custodial violence. As far as judicial interpretations are concerned, it has been held time and again that public servants enjoy no immunity regarding criminal liability, particularly regarding violation of Article 21.
Judicial Accountability
Magistrate- Led Investigations, As stipulated in Section 176(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a mandatory judicial investigation led by a Magistrate in the case of custodial death is the need of the hour. This not only aims to conduct an independent fact-finding process that is not done in police investigations, but it is also imperative in preventing any sort of institutional meddling in the evidence. Role of the Judiciary in Public Interest Litigations via PILs The courts have been playing a continuous overseeing role in the cases that are raised in the realm of PILs involving the lapses on the part of the government in cases of torture in police custody, illegal detention, and failure to follow arrest policies.
Role of NHRC and SHRC
Guidelines for reporting custodial Death
The NHRC & SHRCs have specifically stated that there has to be timely reporting of custodial deaths, as well as post-mortem exams, videography, & results of inquiries held by a magistrate. This makes way for transparency as well as timely intervention.
Compensation Recommendations
Human rights commissions have powers to recommend monetary compensation to the victim’s family, treating custodial death as a serious denial of human rights. While recommendatory in nature, such directions hold persuasive value and are often acted upon by State authorities.
Independent Investigations
The NHRC and SHRCs can also demand the conduct of independent investigations, reports from senior officers in charge, and monitor compliance with human rights norms. It is here that the external supervision acts as an important check on institutional impunity in custodial jurisdictions.
International Human Rights Standards on Custodial Deaths
These deaths are not only matters within domestic law, as they are considered major breaches under international human rights laws and conventions related to issues such as the “protection of life, dignity, and the prohibition on torture.”
The International Responsibilities of Indian Society
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 establishes that all human beings have equal rights. “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person” as stated in Article 3. Additionally, under Article 5, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” Custodial deaths negate this basic requirement imposed on governments around the world, including that of India. “
UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) – India’s Non-Ratification
The UN Convention Against Torture is a holistic document that prevents torture and requires countries to criminalize torture, carry out independent investigations, and provide compensation to victims. Although it is pertinent to note that states that have not ratified this document cannot hold it as effectively applicable within their framework. In this context, it is pertinent to note that India signed the convention in 1997 and is yet to ratify CAT. The lack of ratification affects its applicability.
Analytical Note
Although the constitutional jurisprudence system of India matches mainly with the parameters of global human rights norms, the existing deviation between the global norms and their implementation at the domestic level, specifically with reference to the CAT protocol, still impacts the efficiency of any measures to prevent the phenomenon of custodial deaths.
Challenges in Preventing Custodial Deaths in India
Practical and systematic Issues
In the presence of a strong legal framework, the problem of custodial deaths continues, pointing out the institutional weaknesses that exist. The problem of addressing custodial deaths in India is not that of lack of law but of lack of systems on the part of institutions.
Police reform The key problem is related to the slow pace and unequal application of police reform efforts as a result of judicial mandates. The problems associated with structural factors like politicization in policing, inadequate training related to human rights, and overuse of coercive methods in interaction are responsible for undermining lawful policing practices.The occurrence of custodial violence can be exemplified by the presence of a culture of impunity, where the guilty officials are protected through institutional solidarity. The hesitation to register FIRs and the abuses of sanction provisions weaken the inhibiting effect of discipline and thus fuel the occurrence of violence.
The delay in the start and completion of the investigation affects the cases of custodial deaths considerably. The loss of vital evidence, intimidation of the key prosecution witness, and procedural failures impair the prosecution of the case, making the conviction of the guilty even more remote and causing the public to lose faith in the justice system.Though elaborate detention and arrest regulations have been provided under the directions issued by the Supreme Court and are incorporated in the statute law, strict observance is often neglected. Inadequate monitoring, unaccountability in non-observance, and absence of external checks are factors that diminish the preventive potential of these measures.
Need For Reforms and Preventive Measures
Strengthening Accountability and Transparency
In view of providing a cure for the age-old evils witnessed in Indian society, including police malpractice, detention-related violence, and distrust of the police force, vast changes must be accomplished concerning accountability and police transparency. These relate well to maintaining control over abuse of authority and police accountability regarding their actions.
The Indian police system is greatly impacted by the colonial rule of ‘Police Act, 1861,’ which is marked by interference, lack of autonomy, and lack of accountability regarding the functioning. In a historic ruling regarding ‘Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union of India,’ given in 2006, the Supreme Court has laid down ‘seven recommendations’ that demand fully autonomous ‘Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs)’ to be created at the state level as well as the district levels. PCA members will be charged with examining cases of grave police misconduct, including instances of ‘custodial deaths, rape, extortion, or abuse of official powers,’ which will consist of representation from judges as well as civilians to provide objectivity to the matter.
The practice remains abysmally poor, however, with many states constituting the PCsAs, their independence compromised on account of political domination and lack of resources. If various reports are anything to go by, no authority absolutely meets the vision of the Court as reflected in the ruling, hence impunity. Such an independent complaints authority, so correctly designated, should also be armed with statutory powers, adequate funding for its operations, and checks through independent external oversight; it would thus provide a forceful mechanism for redress, accountability, and restoration of public confidence.
The use of CCTV cameras in the police station is identified as one of the most effective measures that can be taken for the prevention of abuse in the prison. In the conflict of Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh (2020), the Supreme Court gave the following direction in relation to the use of functional CCTV cameras with night vision, audio, and video recording, and one-year data storage in all the police stations and offices of the central agencies investigating agencies such as the CBI, the ED, and the NIA. Audio-video recording of interrogation is another key transparency measure that will have credibility in the prevention of coercion and false confession. This has been strongly advocated by the Supreme Court in several judgments, including the expansion of CCTV cameras in interrogation rooms. The latest BNSS-2023 has included audio-video recording in certain procedures (such as searches and seizures), but it has not yet become mandatory in all cases of prison interrogation.
India became a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) in 1997 but is still unratified up until the year 2026. This will force India after ratification to fully criminalize the offense of torture, its prevention, and also be subject to international oversight. It also leads to impunity because of the fewer prosecuted cases of custodial deaths. This has been recommended in the 273rd Law Commission Report of 2017 that there should be a Prevention of Torture Bill, which is still pending. Compliance of the standards of the UNCAT on human rights at the international level will bring much recognition to the nation, in addition to being obligated to provide strong protection against torture. An anti-torture legislation will have more strength.
The issue of custodial death requires a comprehensive paradigm shift in the legislative, training, and technological aspects. First, there is the need for the legislature to pass the anti-torture law addressing the minimum sentences of 7-10 years as recommended in the 273rd Report of the Law Commission. The ratification of the UNCAT treaty will ensure India adheres to the universally recognized rules that the independent investigations of claims of torture become obligatory. It is long overdue in the police department because of the need for a refreshers course in the topics of Human Rights, Ethics, and Trauma Informed Policing. There is the allocation of resources using the 5% of the budget for the mental health of the officers because of the challenge of burnout.
Other technological interventions that are mooted as necessarily to be made part of procedures include compulsory CCTV in stations and prisons, with real-time monitoring and tamper-proof storage. It is, in essence, the ruling in Paramvir Singh Saini. Certainly, if interrogations and medical tests at the time of arrest and detention are audio-visually recorded, it will go a long way in curbing the abuse of torture. The NHRC needs to be strengthened by making its recommendations binding and increasing its funding. Public and civil society involvement is very important: awareness about rights, whistleblower protections, and media scrutiny place pressure on authorities. Witness protection schemes, with financial assistance, would facilitate testimony. For judicial custody, reduce Pilot initiatives, such as mental health units for police in Kerala or counseling in Bengaluru, show promise and need to be scaled up nationally. Ultimately, a cultural shift from punitive to accountable policing is required, with zero tolerance enforced through more stringent penalties. Conflicting Issues Relating to Custodial Deaths Custodial deaths in India reflect deep tensions between human rights imperatives and the operational demands of law enforcement. A crucial tension lies in balancing police powers with individual liberties: whereas the police demand discretion in high-crime scenarios, the ambiguity of laws such as the Police Act 1861 facilitates abuse, according to critics, at the expense of basic rights. Add to this the “fake encounters,” which involve extrajudicial killings on the pretext of justifiable self-defense, in blatant contravention of Article 21. Reforms to policing are resisted from within the force,
which view “saps morale when staff is short and risk is high”, yet human rights organizations decry “brotherhood” culture of impunity as noted in a 2014 document by REDRESS, where torture “is seen, unfortunately, to be normalized, as NHRC statistics show that torture continues despite guidelines.” Minorities bear the brunt, sparking equality debates, as it “remains as it is: it is still discriminatory treatment under UAPA, which hampers implementation of Article 14.” A split exists between international and national agendas, where although “circumstances which explain India’s failure to sign and ratify UNC CAT constitute, prima facie, an aspect of sovereignty”, domestic loopholes “continue to create opportunities for abuse.” Deaths in judicial custody illustrate resource deficits locked in struggle between rights: “Prisons overflow, resulting in prisoners being neglected due to lack of resources.” These conflicts bring up the need for nuanced reforms that address root causes without undermining security. Conclusion Custodial deaths in India are not isolated aberrations but symptoms of a flawed system premised upon control rather than compassion. The fact that such tragedies continue unabated is a result of persistent impunity and serious implementation gaps, despite a sound legal framework and judicial safeguards, with over 28,000 lost lives since 2009.
Conclusion: Custodial Deaths in India – An Overview on the Legal Framework and Accountability
Custodial deaths in India constitute serious defiance of the basic right to life, dignity, and liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Despite the presence of well-structured legal components in the form of the Constitution itself, the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the judicially developed principles of rules, custodial violence continues to persist in India. The presence of judicial activism in the form of the Supreme Court and the various High Courts of the Indian states has been extremely effective in increasing the degree of responsibility in the form of mandatory proceedings, compensation for the aggrieved family of the victims of custodial violence, as well as recognition of the serious issue of custodial torture as a serious concern in the realm of human rights. Nevertheless, the lack of anti-torture laws in India as well as the prolongation of proceedings in the investigation as well as the pursuit of the case in the courts seriously undermines the aspect of responsibility in relation to the prevention of custodial violence. A multidimensional strategy in the form of judicial as well as administrative responsibility is hence required in the Indian context in relation to the prevention of custodial violence.
“custodial deaths in India are amongst the saddest instances of the violation of human rights in a democratic state.” They are instances in which citizens are deprived of their liberty and their lives are lost due to negligence or, worse still, state-backed torturous violence. These are attacks on the cornerstone of the rule of law because the state, which holds the duty to protect and preserve the liberty and integrity of its citizens, becomes the perpetrator who causes them irrevocable harm instead. The National Human Rights Commission statistics indicate the alarming extent to which this evil has proliferated in the nation. There have been over 11,650 reported instances of custodial deaths between the years 2016 and 2022, and the figure remains “alarming” in the years that followed, with the figure of around 2,739 reported in the year 2024. Additionally, there are “many instances in which the accused are poor and marginalized.” This leads to the loss of public trust in law and order and the reputation of the state and its adherence to human rights and the rule of law being battered in the process as well.
Despite these measures, the continued recurrence of incidents like these points to a very critical deficiency, namely a lack of proper implementation and a practically universal sense of impunity for perpetrators of custodial deaths. The necessity for accountability for custodial deaths, therefore, touches not only upon satisfying the call for justice for any particular family, but for maintaining, as well, the very fabric of a democratic society typified by a strict adherence to the rule of law. This becomes especially so if those who presumably enforce the law end up turning out as offenders instead.
Only through unflinching adherence to the principles of accountability will India be able to assure itself that the place of custody will never become the place of death. On the contrary, it will always become the place of justice.
About Author
Yash Sharma is currently in the third year of BA.LLB at IMS Law College, Noida, and has a passion for corporate laws and research. He has already qualified the entrance exam for the Company Secretary Executive, through which he is currently pursuing the Executive level of the Company Secretary course, which once again confirms his decision to pursue a career in corporate laws.
Yash has also gained very valuable exposure in the form of legal research work that he is handling. He is also the writer of an article titled “Global Migration and Asylum Policies” that is published in the publication named “The Legal Quorum.”
Yash is a person who exhibits immense interest in comprehending the point where the concepts of law, governance, and accountability meet. He uses this novel approach for his research work in understanding the concept of custodial deaths in India.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What is meant by custodial death in India?
Custodial death refers to the death of an individual who is in the custody of the police, either during arrest and interrogation or in prison, awaiting trial or serving a sentence. It is a result of torture, excessive use of force, neglect, or under duress suicide.
2.Which are the laws dealing with custodial deaths in India?
Different provisions are present in Indian law regarding custodial deaths, and that is regarding the prevention of custodial deaths, investigation, and punishment. Under the Indian Penal Code, the punishment regarding the administration of pain to obtain confessional statements is provided under Sections 330 and 331. Regarding the custodial death, which is characterized as murder, the punishment is life imprisonment or death under Section 302. Remedies are provided regarding the preventive measures and are expressed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is under Sections 46 and 49. This states that there can be no forced and restraining measures regarding the arrest of an individual. This is further expressed under Section 176(1) regarding the inquiry by the Magistrate after every death or disappearance that occurs during or after detention.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life and personal liberty, contemplating deprivation only by due process, which has been interpreted by courts as affording protection against custodial violence. The National Human Rights Commission, NHRC guidelines have required that all custodial deaths must be reported within 24 hours, followed by a post-mortem examination by a panel of doctors and videography of the autopsy for publicity and accountability.
3.How does the judiciary function in the case of custodial deaths?
The Indian judiciary has an important role in dealing with custodial deaths by protecting their rights, providing security, and securing justice through significant judgments. It has provided judicial security for custodial prisoners through Supreme Court judgments, such as in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal in 1997, providing guidelines for arrests involving informing the arrestee regarding the reasons for arrest, notifying family members, preparing an arrest register, etc. It also requires an independent probe into custodial deaths and has further expanded Article 21 by incorporating the right against torture.
4.How can accountability be ensured in custodial deaths?
Accountability for commission of custodial death can be ensured by independent investigation, strong prosecution, and reform initiatives. It is important that the investigation is independent; as per the provision in Section 176 CrPC, there is a requirement for magisterial investigations; in addition, the NHRC usually recommends CBI investigations to avoid bias in investigations by the concerned police authorities; finally, post-mortem investigations should be recorded on camera and done in a timely manner. While officers should be charged under the various provisions of the IPC code that pertain to murder or negligent performance of duty (such as in section 302 or 330), the conviction rate is alarming. Reforms should focus on adherence to the guidelines of the Prakash Singh judgment regarding the accountability of the police; further, Police Complaints Authorities can be established at the district and state levels; finally, training programs regarding rights should be emphasized