Custodial Deaths And Accountability
π What are Custodial Deaths?
Custodial deaths refer to deaths of individuals while in the custody of police, prison authorities, or other law enforcement agencies. These deaths may occur due to:
Physical torture or assault
Denial of medical treatment
Negligence or inhuman conditions
Alleged suicides under suspicious circumstances
Custodial deaths are considered serious violations of human rights and attract criminal, civil, and constitutional liability.
π¨ Legal Provisions Involved
Article 21 of the Constitution of India / Right to Life (India)
Sections 302, 304, 330, 331 IPC β Homicide, causing hurt or torture to extort confession
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) β Inquest under Sections 174, 176
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
UN Convention Against Torture (not yet ratified by India)
π Landmark Case Law on Custodial Deaths and Accountability
1. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) β Supreme Court of India
Facts:
PIL filed on custodial deaths and torture by police.
Highlighted lack of accountability and procedural safeguards.
Judgment:
Laid down guidelines for arrest and detention to prevent torture.
Mandated:
Arrest memo to be prepared and signed.
Family to be informed immediately.
Medical check-up every 48 hours.
Right to consult a lawyer.
Held that custodial torture violates Article 21 (Right to Life).
Importance:
Watershed judgment on custodial rights.
First comprehensive guidelines to prevent custodial abuse.
2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) β Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Petition by mother of a 22-year-old boy who died in police custody.
Allegation of police brutality.
Judgment:
Supreme Court awarded compensation of βΉ1,50,000 to the mother.
Held that public officials are personally liable for custodial torture.
Recognized the concept of constitutional torts and monetary compensation under Article 32.
Significance:
Made state liability for custodial deaths an enforceable right.
Emphasized public law remedy for breach of fundamental rights.
3. Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati (1962)
Facts:
Although not about custodial death, the case laid foundational principle for vicarious liability of the State in tortious acts by government employees.
Judgment:
Held that the State is liable for negligence of its employees if committed during course of duty.
Importance:
Basis for applying state liability in custodial death cases.
4. Peopleβs Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2014)
Facts:
Related to fake encounters and custodial deaths in Maharashtra.
Concerned multiple alleged extra-judicial killings by police.
Judgment:
Laid down 16-point guidelines for police encounters.
Mandated magisterial inquiry, FIR registration, independent investigation, and NHRC notification.
Significance:
Brought fake encounters and custodial deaths under judicial oversight.
Reinforced that no individual is above the law.
5. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012)
Facts:
A businessman was detained and tortured without formal arrest or charges.
Judgment:
Supreme Court awarded βΉ5 lakhs compensation.
Strongly condemned the violation of human dignity and personal liberty.
Importance:
Reiterated that even illegal detention without death can attract compensation under public law remedy.
6. Smt. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Facts:
Concerned with use of narco-analysis and polygraph tests in custody.
Raised issues of mental coercion and consent in custodial investigations.
Judgment:
Held that involuntary use of such techniques violates Article 20(3) (Right against self-incrimination) and Article 21.
Relevance:
Broadened scope of custodial rights beyond physical harm to include psychological coercion.
7. State of MP v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995)
Facts:
Death of a person in police custody.
Evidence tampered and post-mortem manipulated.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held the police guilty of custodial murder.
Criticized the culture of impunity and called for stricter sentencing.
Significance:
Demonstrated that custodial deaths can be treated as murder under IPC Section 302, not just negligence.
βοΈ Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Article 21 enforcement | Custodial deaths violate the right to life and personal liberty. |
| Strict state liability | State is liable for unlawful acts of its agents. |
| Compensation for rights breach | Victims/families entitled to monetary compensation. |
| No impunity for officials | Police officers can be criminally prosecuted. |
| Procedural safeguards | Arrests and detentions must follow guidelines (DK Basu). |
| Public law remedy | Independent of criminal proceedings, victims can approach constitutional courts. |
π§ Summary
Custodial deaths represent one of the gravest forms of human rights violations. Courts have responded by strengthening procedural safeguards, enforcing accountability, and recognizing victims' rights through compensation, prosecution, and judicial scrutiny. Key rulings, especially DK Basu and Nilabati Behera, remain foundational in the jurisprudence of custodial accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments