Custodial Torture And Accountability
What is Custodial Torture?
Custodial torture refers to the infliction of physical or mental suffering on a person by police, prison officials, or other authorities while the person is in their custody.
This can include beatings, electric shocks, sexual violence, mental harassment, deprivation of food or water, and other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Custodial torture violates fundamental rights and is illegal under Indian law.
Legal and Constitutional Provisions Against Custodial Torture
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Right to life and personal liberty – protects against torture and inhuman treatment.
Article 14 and 19: Equal protection and freedom, impacted by unlawful detention and torture.
Section 330 & 331 IPC: Criminalizes voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or to intimidate accused.
Section 376(2)(g) IPC: Sexual violence by police in custody.
Section 197 CrPC: Prior sanction required for prosecution of public servants, including police.
Supreme Court Guidelines: Various guidelines and directions to prevent custodial torture and ensure accountability.
Accountability Mechanisms
Judicial interventions and directions.
Human Rights Commissions at central and state levels.
Police reforms including improved training, use of CCTV in interrogation rooms.
Prosecution of guilty officers under IPC.
Compensation and rehabilitation for victims.
Landmark Case Laws on Custodial Torture and Accountability
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts:
The Supreme Court dealt with custodial deaths and torture by police officials.
Issue:
What safeguards should be adopted to prevent custodial torture and deaths?
Holding:
The Court issued detailed guidelines to prevent custodial torture including:
Police to prepare an arrest memo.
Inform family or friend of arrested person immediately.
Medical examination of the detainee at the time of arrest and periodically.
Proper identification of the arresting officers.
Entry of the arrest and detention in a police diary.
Right of the detainee to have a lawyer present during interrogation.
The Court emphasized strict accountability and deterrence.
Significance:
Landmark case setting procedural safeguards.
Courts began actively overseeing custodial treatment.
Foundation for combating custodial torture in India.
2. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
Facts:
The issue was the use of narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain mapping on accused persons in custody.
Issue:
Whether involuntary administration of such tests violates Article 21 rights.
Holding:
Supreme Court held such tests without consent violate the right against self-incrimination and personal liberty.
Emphasized protection against coercion and inhuman treatment.
The judgment indirectly combats custodial torture by safeguarding mental and bodily integrity.
Significance:
Strengthened safeguards against torture under the guise of scientific investigation.
Reinforced procedural and substantive rights in custody.
3. People's Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Haryana (1982) 3 SCC 235
Facts:
Custodial deaths and torture of bonded laborers reported.
Issue:
State’s responsibility and accountability for custodial torture.
Holding:
The Court emphasized that custodial torture and deaths violate fundamental rights.
State must take strict measures to investigate and compensate victims.
Torture is incompatible with constitutional guarantees.
Significance:
Strengthened state accountability.
Established state’s positive obligation to prevent torture.
4. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Facts:
Custodial death of a minor girl led to petition for compensation and inquiry.
Issue:
Whether victims of custodial torture and deaths are entitled to compensation.
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled custodial death is a violation of Article 21.
Directed payment of compensation to victim’s family.
Held State liable for negligence and human rights violation.
Significance:
First case to impose monetary compensation for custodial death.
Developed concept of state accountability and victim’s right to reparation.
5. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1
Facts:
A public interest litigation concerning police reforms.
Issue:
How to reduce incidents of custodial torture by reforming police.
Holding:
Supreme Court issued binding directions for police reforms, including:
Fixed tenure for officers to avoid political interference.
Police accountability mechanisms.
Training on human rights and custodial safeguards.
Aimed to curb custodial violence and promote professionalism.
Significance:
Landmark police reform case impacting custodial torture prevention.
Institutionalized accountability and transparency.
6. Pradip Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111
Facts:
Allegation of custodial torture in police custody.
Issue:
Whether torturous acts in custody attract penal provisions and remedies.
Holding:
The Supreme Court recognized custodial torture as a grave violation attracting criminal liability.
Emphasized prompt investigation and punishment.
Highlighted importance of compensation and victim rehabilitation.
Significance:
Reinforced criminal accountability for custodial torture.
Supported victim-centric remedies.
Summary Table of Custodial Torture Case Laws
| Case Name | Year | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| D.K. Basu v. West Bengal | 1997 | Detailed safeguards to prevent custodial torture |
| Selvi v. Karnataka | 2010 | Protection against involuntary narco-analysis and coercion |
| People's Union for Democratic Rights | 1982 | State’s duty to prevent and compensate for custodial torture |
| Nilabati Behera v. Orissa | 1993 | Compensation for custodial death, state liability |
| Prakash Singh v. Union of India | 2006 | Police reforms to curb custodial torture |
| Pradip Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology | 2002 | Custodial torture attracts criminal liability, victim rights |
Conclusion
Custodial torture is a serious violation of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.
Judicial activism has led to the establishment of strong procedural safeguards to protect detainees.
Courts have repeatedly held that state authorities must be accountable and victims are entitled to compensation and remedies.
Continuous police reforms and monitoring mechanisms are essential to curb custodial violence.
The judiciary plays a critical role in enforcing accountability and safeguarding human dignity in custody.
RELATED Blog
0 comments