Custodial Deaths in India: A Grave Human Rights Concern

Posted by on


Illustration: Ramandeep Kaur | ThePrint

Introduction

Custodial deaths continue to pose a serious challenge to the rule of law and the protection of constitutional rights in India. Despite repeated judicial interventions and guidelines, instances of alleged torture and deaths in police custody persist across various states. A recent case in Tamil Nadu, involving the death of a young man named Ajith Kumar in Sivaganga district, has brought renewed attention to the issue. The circumstances of his detention—reportedly without the registration of a formal complaint or FIR—and the subsequent allegations of excessive force have raised concerns about procedural compliance, police accountability, and systemic reform. While immediate administrative and political responses have followed, the incident underscores the continuing need for institutional safeguards to prevent such occurrences and to ensure that law enforcement operates within the framework of legality and human dignity.

Understanding Custodial Deaths

Custodial death refers to the demise of an individual while in the custody of law enforcement agencies or judicial authorities. These deaths can occur in police stations, prisons, or during transit, and they raise serious concerns regarding the humane treatment of detainees and the accountability of the personnel involved. Although each case may involve specific circumstances, many custodial deaths share common patterns involving excessive force, lack of medical care, and neglect of standard procedures.

Types of Custodial Deaths

  1. Police Custody Deaths
    These occur when an individual dies while detained in a police station or under police escort. In many cases, the deaths result from:

    • Physical assault or torture during interrogation (commonly referred to as “third-degree” treatment)

    • Denial of access to medical attention despite visible injuries

    • Psychological trauma and stress while in confinement

    • Alleged suicides that often lack independent verification

  2. Judicial Custody Deaths
    These happen within jails or correctional facilities after the accused is remanded by a magistrate. Although physical violence may be less common here compared to police custody, factors such as the following often contribute:

    • Inadequate medical facilities or delayed treatment

    • Poor living conditions, malnutrition, or lack of sanitation

    • Violence or harassment by fellow inmates

    • Negligence or misconduct by jail authorities

  3. Transit Custody Deaths
    Individuals may also die during transfers between police stations, courts, or hospitals. These deaths often involve:

    • Exhaustion and dehydration during prolonged transport

    • Use of force to restrain the accused

    • Pre-existing medical conditions that worsen due to lack of care en route

  4. Deaths in Unofficial or Illegal Custody
    In some instances, persons are detained without any formal arrest or legal documentation. Such cases involve:

    • Detention in unofficial locations like private buildings or vehicles

    • No registration of an FIR or entry into the official station diary

    • Complete absence of procedural safeguards, making investigation and accountability difficult

Legal and Institutional Framework

1. Constitutional Provisions

  • Article 21: Ensures the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Any form of torture, inhuman treatment, or death in custody without legal sanction violates this fundamental right.

  • Article 22: Protects against arbitrary arrest and provides for:

    • Information on grounds of arrest.

    • The right to consult a legal practitioner.

    • Mandatory production before a magistrate within 24 hours.

2. Provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The BNSS, which replaced the CrPC in 2023, introduces several procedural safeguards, many of which carry forward the spirit of earlier provisions with updated language and structure.

Key provisions related to custodial protection include:

  • Section 35 (previously CrPC Sec 41):

    • Conditions for arrest without a warrant.

    • Police officers must record reasons for making or not making an arrest.

    • Arrests for offences punishable with less than 3 years are to be made only under specific, justified circumstances.

  • Section 36 (Arrest procedures):

    • Arrest memo must include the time, date, place of arrest, and be signed by a witness (family member or a respectable person).

    • The arrested person must be informed of their rights, including the right to inform a relative or friend.

  • Section 38:

    • The arrested person is entitled to meet an advocate during interrogation, though not throughout the entire interrogation.

  • Section 43 (Medical Examination):

    • Mandates medical examination of the accused by a registered medical practitioner every 48 hours during custody, at the request of the arrestee or as ordered by the magistrate.

3. Judicial Guidelines

The Indian judiciary has played a pivotal role in addressing custodial abuse through landmark judgments:

  • D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1996):
    The Supreme Court laid down 11 binding guidelines to be followed during arrests and detentions. These include:

    • Preparing an arrest memo attested by a witness.

    • Informing relatives or friends of the detainee.

    • Periodic medical examination.

    • Access to legal counsel.

    • Maintaining a custody record.

  • Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006):
    This judgment mandated wide-ranging police reforms, including:

    • Separation of law and order from investigation.

    • Fixed tenure for senior officers.

    • Establishment of Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs) to address misconduct.

Despite these directives, implementation across states remains uneven and often symbolic.

4. Human Rights Institutions

  • National Human Rights Commission (NHRC):

    • Established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

    • All custodial deaths must be reported to NHRC within 24 hours.

    • NHRC may initiate inquiries, recommend compensation, and call for disciplinary action.

    • However, its recommendations are not legally binding.

  • State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs):
    Operate at the state level with a similar mandate. Their effectiveness varies significantly by state, depending on capacity and autonomy.

5. International Commitments

  • United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)

    • India signed UNCAT in 1997, but has not ratified it.

    • Ratification would mandate a domestic anti-torture law and permit international inspections.

    • Non-ratification limits India's global human rights credibility.

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948)

    • Article 5 prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

    • Serves as a foundational principle, though not legally binding.

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966)

    • India ratified in 1979.

    • Obligates the state to prohibit torture, ensure accountability, and offer legal redress.

  • UN Guidelines and Standards

    • Nelson Mandela Rules (2015): Emphasize dignity, medical care, and humane prison conditions.

    • Body of Principles (1988): Ensure rights like medical access, legal counsel, and protection from abuse.

    • Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979): Promotes law-abiding, proportional, and accountable policing.

  • Periodic International Review & Criticism

    • India undergoes regular Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by the UN Human Rights Council.

    • Concerns have been raised about impunity, delay in ratifying UNCAT, and lack of torture prevention mechanisms.

Statistics and Trends

  • Custodial Deaths (April 2020–February 2022):
    India recorded 4,247 custodial deaths — 255 in police custody and 3,992 in judicial custody — according to Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) data presented in Parliament.

  • Custodial Deaths (2021–22):
    As per National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) data, there were 155 deaths in police custody and 2,150 deaths in judicial custody. Disciplinary action was initiated in only 0.23% of police custody cases.

  • State‑wise Breakdown (2018–2023):
    According to National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT) reports and NCRB data, Maharashtra reported the highest number of police custody deaths in 2021–22 (30), followed by Gujarat (24) and Tamil Nadu (13 in five years).

  • Under-reporting & Data Gaps:
    A comparison of NCRB, NHRC, and NCAT data reveals significant discrepancies and under-reporting, especially in FIR registrations and action taken.

  • Deaths Within 24 Hours of Arrest:
    An NHRC analysis (2018–2022) indicates that 61% of police custody deaths occurred within 24 hours of arrest, before the individual was produced before a magistrate. In some states, this rose above 90%.

  • Judicial or Magisterial Inquiries:
    NCRB's Crime in India 2022 report shows that only 35% of custodial deaths were followed by judicial or magisterial inquiries, despite legal mandates. This was lower than 40% in 2018.

  • Lack of Prosecution and Convictions:
    From 2018–2022, of 394 police custody deaths, FIRs were filed in only 10%, chargesheets in 12%, and zero convictions were reported. (Source: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative – CHRI)

  • Prison Custodial Deaths:
    Prison Statistics India 2021 (released by NCRB) recorded 1,879 natural deaths, 185 unnatural deaths, and 52 unexplained deaths, indicating concerns over prison conditions and healthcare.

  • Police Attitudes on Use of Force:
    The Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR) 2019 by Common Cause & Lokniti-CSDS revealed that:

    • 20% of police personnel believe violence is essential during interrogation.

    • 35% think some level of force is necessary to maintain discipline.

Major Cases in India

Custodial deaths and abuses in India have repeatedly exposed systemic issues in policing and prison administration. The following major cases — drawn from across states and circumstances — reflect patterns of excessive force, medical negligence, and targeting of vulnerable communities:

1. P. Jeyaraj and F. Bennicks (2020, Tamil Nadu)
A father-son duo died in police custody in Sathankulam, Thoothukudi district, after being allegedly subjected to brutal torture for violating COVID-19 lockdown rules. Their deaths sparked national outrage and led to the arrest of several police personnel. The CBI was assigned the case, and the incident became symbolic of unchecked police brutality.

2. Father Stan Swamy (2021, Maharashtra)
An 84-year-old tribal rights activist arrested under UAPA in the Bhima Koregaon case, Fr. Stan Swamy died in judicial custody after suffering prolonged delays in medical care despite multiple bail pleas. Afflicted by Parkinson’s disease, he had to wait weeks for a straw and sipper. His case exposed the inhuman treatment of elderly undertrials and the dangers of medical neglect in custodial institutions.

3. Altaf (2021, Uttar Pradesh)
A 22-year-old Muslim youth, detained in connection with an alleged elopement case, was found dead in police custody in Kasganj. Police claimed suicide using a drawstring, but the family alleged custodial killing. The case raised questions over communal bias and lack of independent investigation in custodial deaths.

4. Vikas Dubey Encounter (2020, Uttar Pradesh)
Gangster Vikas Dubey was killed in a police encounter while being transported from Ujjain to Kanpur after his arrest. The police claimed he tried to escape after a vehicle overturned. Civil society and legal experts criticized the incident as a suspected extra-judicial killing, reflecting growing concerns about fake encounters under the guise of law enforcement.

5. Rohtash Kumar (2022, Bihar)
A Dalit youth from Gaya district died under suspicious circumstances while in police custody. The family alleged custodial torture, and the post-mortem report indicated multiple internal injuries. The case brought attention to caste-based targeting and marginalized communities’ vulnerability to police excesses.

6. Ajay Mishra alias Teni Case (2021, Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh)
Though not a classic custodial case, the delayed arrest of Ashish Mishra, son of MoS Home Ajay Mishra, in the farmers’ killing case brought attention to selective police action, especially when politically influential individuals are involved.

Root Causes

Custodial deaths are not merely individual aberrations but symptomatic of deeper structural and systemic failures in the law enforcement and criminal justice system. Multiple interlinked factors contribute to their persistence:

1. Use of Third-Degree Methods for Interrogation

Despite legal prohibitions, the use of physical and psychological torture to extract confessions or information remains widespread in India. This stems from a colonial-era policing mindset that prioritizes confessions over evidence-based investigation.

2. Lack of Police Training and Sensitization
Police personnel, particularly at lower ranks, often lack adequate training in human rights, lawful interrogation techniques, and the handling of vulnerable groups such as juveniles, women, and the mentally ill. There is also limited understanding of safeguards enshrined in the Constitution and criminal laws.

3. Institutional Impunity and Weak Accountability Mechanisms
Departmental inquiries and prosecutions of erring officials are rare or delayed. Internal investigations often lack independence, and prosecutions under sections like Sec 197 CrPC (now Sec 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) require prior sanction from the government, making accountability difficult.

4. Poor Prison and Lock-up Conditions
Overcrowded, under-resourced lock-ups with inadequate medical and mental health facilities exacerbate risks, especially for those with pre-existing conditions. Non-availability of timely medical attention contributes to avoidable deaths.

5. Socio-Economic and Identity-Based Targeting
Marginalized groups such as Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, migrants, and the urban poor are disproportionately represented in custodial deaths. This reflects both societal prejudice and structural discrimination in the criminal justice process.

6. Delays in Judicial Oversight and Magistrate Visits
While laws mandate regular judicial inspections of police stations and jails, in practice, such visits are often irregular or superficial. Failure to implement custodial safeguards like Section 57 of BNSS (within 24 hours production before magistrate) results in unchecked detention.

7. Political Interference and Policing Culture
A lack of operational autonomy in the police force allows political interference, which can shield offenders or delay justice. The hierarchical and rigid command structure further discourages whistleblowing or dissent from within the force.

8. Absence of Surveillance and Technology Integration
While the Supreme Court has mandated CCTVs in police stations (e.g., in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, 2020), implementation has been patchy. The absence of reliable surveillance footage makes it difficult to prove misconduct.

9. Legal Gaps and Non-Ratification of International Conventions
India has yet to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). The absence of a comprehensive anti-torture legislation dilutes the legal deterrence and clarity required to prosecute custodial violence effectively.

Government Response and Reform Initiatives

India’s response to custodial deaths involves a combination of judicial mandates, policy reforms, technological upgrades, and administrative efforts. The following initiatives capture the range of government actions taken to address this issue:

1. Major Police Reform Provisions

  • Prakash Singh vs Union of India (2006): The Supreme Court mandated key reforms such as setting up Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs), separating investigation from law and order, and establishing State Security Commissions.

  • Model Police Act, 2006: Drafted by the Soli Sorabjee Committee, this Act sought to professionalize the police force and make it accountable. However, its adoption by states has been inconsistent.

2. Technological Interventions

  • CCTV Installation in Police Stations: Mandated by the Supreme Court in the Paramvir Singh Saini case (2020), it requires all police stations and lock-ups to have functional CCTV systems with audio-video recording.

  • Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS): A pan-India platform for real-time FIR and detainee tracking. It integrates with the e-Prisons database and has state-specific tools like Bihar’s MedLeaPR App to streamline medico-legal processes.

3. Oversight and Inquiry Mechanisms

  • Judicial Inquiries: As per BNS Section 193(1A) (previously CrPC Section 176(1A)), a judicial inquiry is mandatory in every case of custodial death or rape.

  • Role of NHRC: The National Human Rights Commission monitors such incidents, recommends compensation, and issues standard operating procedures (SOPs) to prevent abuse. While advisory in nature, NHRC’s reports have driven several state-level interventions.

4. Victim Compensation and Redress

  • High Court-Directed Compensation: Several High Courts have awarded significant interim compensation to victims' families (e.g., ₹25 lakh in Tamil Nadu, ₹5 lakh in Maharashtra).

  • Witness Protection: Courts have increasingly stressed the need for protecting eyewitnesses in custodial violence cases.

  • Compliance Mechanisms: Authorities have been directed to ensure CCTV functionality and maintain custody registers accurately.

5. Training and Capacity Building

  • BPR&D-Led Trainings: The Bureau of Police Research and Development organizes regular training sessions on human rights, ethical policing, and use of force.

  • SMART Policing Initiative: Promotes Sensitivity, Modernization, Accountability, Reliability, and Tech-savviness in policing.

6. Community Policing and Public Engagement

  • Janamaithri Suraksha (Kerala) and Mane Mane Police (Mysuru): These initiatives aim to bridge the gap between citizens and the police through community-level engagement.

  • Police Mitra Scheme: Volunteers assist police in maintaining order, though there are concerns over accountability and potential misuse.

7. Grievance Redress Platforms

  • CPGRAMS: A centralized portal where citizens can file complaints against government departments, including police misconduct.

  • JanSunwai Module (Prayagraj): A local innovation enabling daily virtual meetings between senior officers and station-level staff for rapid grievance redress.

  • Delhi’s IPMS App (Upcoming): A proposed integrated platform to allow users to file and track complaints from their smartphones, extending beyond theft and burglary.

Key Gaps and Unaddressed Reforms

  • Non-implementation of Expert Committee Recommendations: Reports by the National Police Commission, Ribeiro Committee, and Padmanabhaiah Committee have been largely ignored in practice.

  • Absence of Anti-Torture Legislation: The Prevention of Torture Bill (2010) lapsed, and India is yet to enact a comprehensive law in line with the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT).

  • Ineffectiveness of PCAs: Many state-level Police Complaints Authorities lack independence, adequate staffing, and even jurisdiction over serious misconduct like custodial deaths.

Way Forward

Addressing custodial deaths in India requires a multi-pronged, sustained approach that balances police accountability with systemic reforms and institutional strengthening. The following steps are essential:

  • Enact Comprehensive Anti-Torture Legislation: India must enact a standalone law criminalizing torture in all forms, in line with the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), which it has signed but not ratified.

  • Ensure Strict Implementation of Judicial Guidelines: Supreme Court directives from D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), Prakash Singh (2006), and Paramvir Singh Saini (2020) must be uniformly implemented across all states.

  • Strengthen Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs): PCAs should be granted functional independence, clear jurisdiction, adequate staff, and powers to investigate serious misconduct, including custodial torture and deaths.

  • Mandate Use of Technology: Ensure 100% CCTV coverage of lock-ups with real-time monitoring by independent oversight bodies. Proper maintenance, storage, and audit of footage must be guaranteed.

  • Promote Institutional Capacity and Training: Emphasize human rights, ethical conduct, and lawful interrogation practices during police training. Sensitization must be extended to all ranks.

  • Independent Judicial Monitoring: Judicial magistrates must proactively inspect custodial facilities and promptly inquire into all custodial deaths under BNS Section 193(1A).

  • Data Transparency and Accountability: Improve reliability and granularity of custodial death data published by NCRB. States must publish compliance reports on custodial safeguards.

  • Protect Whistleblowers and Witnesses: Create secure mechanisms for detainees, family members, and police personnel to report violations without fear of retribution.

  • Community Policing and Public Trust: Promote inclusive policing practices that encourage citizen engagement and improve transparency and legitimacy of the police force.

  • Political and Bureaucratic Will: Reform initiatives require sustained political commitment and administrative resolve to challenge entrenched impunity and shift institutional culture.

Conclusion

Custodial deaths reflect a grave violation of constitutional rights and highlight the urgent need for comprehensive police and institutional reforms in India. Despite Article 21 of the Constitution and multiple judicial directives, systemic lapses in accountability and procedural safeguards allow such incidents to continue.

Temporary administrative measures often fail to deliver sustained justice. The Law Commission’s 273rd Report (2017) stressed the importance of ratifying the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and enacting a standalone Prevention of Torture law—recommendations that remain unimplemented.

The death of Lala Lajpat Rai due to police brutality during the freedom movement stands as a reminder of the dangers of unchecked force. India must commit to systemic reforms that ensure transparency, independent oversight, and justice, upholding the dignity of every individual in custody.

“The police are not above the law but its servants. The rule of law is not a pious platitude but a pragmatic prescription for governance.” — Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer

Comments

Post a Comment