Custodial Torture Jurisprudence In Bangladesh
Custodial Torture in Bangladesh: Overview
Custodial torture refers to physical or mental abuse inflicted by law enforcement officers on persons in custody, often to extract confessions or punish them. Bangladesh’s Constitution and statutory law recognize:
Article 31 & 32 – Right to protection of law and personal liberty.
Article 35 – Protection in arrest and detention.
Bangladesh Penal Code & Code of Criminal Procedure – Provide punishment for assault, torture, or illegal detention.
Judicially, courts have evolved jurisprudence to curb custodial abuse, emphasizing accountability and fundamental rights.
Key judicial principles developed:
Torture violates constitutional guarantees of life and liberty.
Confessions obtained through torture are inadmissible in court.
Courts can order compensation for victims of custodial abuse.
Police and authorities are accountable for human rights violations.
Key Case Laws on Custodial Torture
1. State v. M.A. Baset (1982)
Facts:
The petitioner alleged severe physical torture by police to extract a confession during investigation.
High Court/Supreme Court Ruling:
The Court held that confessions obtained under coercion or torture are inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act and Section 167 CrPC.
Recognized that custodial torture violates Article 32 (right to life and liberty).
Significance:
Established the principle that coerced confessions cannot form the basis of conviction.
Laid groundwork for judicial scrutiny of police conduct in Bangladesh.
2. Abdul Malek v. State (1995)
Facts:
A person detained by police was reportedly beaten and humiliated in custody.
Court Findings:
The High Court observed that custodial torture constitutes a violation of fundamental rights.
Ordered investigation against police officers responsible for abuse.
Directed medical examination and documentation of injuries in cases of alleged torture.
Significance:
Strengthened judicial oversight over law enforcement accountability.
Emphasized that torture is a human rights violation punishable under law, even if not resulting in death.
3. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v. Bangladesh (2003)
Facts:
A petition was filed challenging routine custodial torture and extrajudicial punishment by police.
Ruling:
Supreme Court issued directives to ensure proper investigation of custodial deaths and torture cases.
Police officers found culpable were to be suspended and prosecuted.
Courts stressed that administrative measures alone are insufficient; judicial remedies are essential.
Significance:
Landmark in institutionalizing judicial intervention to prevent custodial torture.
Strengthened the right to remedy for victims.
4. Humayun Kabir v. Bangladesh (2005)
Facts:
Petitioner alleged that he was tortured during detention in a police station, resulting in serious injuries.
Court Findings:
Court held that torture is a violation of Article 32 (life and personal liberty) and Article 35 (protection during detention).
Ordered compensation for physical and mental suffering.
Directed that police follow proper procedures and respect detainee rights.
Significance:
Recognized monetary compensation as a tool to deter custodial abuse.
Reinforced that judicial supervision is essential in detention matters.
5. Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) v. Government of Bangladesh (2010)
Facts:
A public interest litigation was filed regarding widespread custodial torture, deaths in custody, and lack of accountability.
Court Findings:
Court declared that systemic torture violates constitutional rights and international human rights obligations.
Directed the government to:
Train police on human rights.
Introduce independent investigation of custodial deaths.
Ensure compliance with Bangladesh Penal Code sections punishing assault and torture.
Significance:
Institutionalized reforms for systematic prevention of custodial torture.
Highlighted the Supreme Court’s proactive role in balancing law enforcement with human rights.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Supreme Court Principle | Outcome/Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| State v. M.A. Baset (1982) | Torture for confession | Coerced confessions inadmissible; violates Article 32 | Strengthened evidence law protections |
| Abdul Malek v. State (1995) | Beating in custody | Judicial oversight; accountability of police | Directed investigation and medical documentation |
| BLAST v. Bangladesh (2003) | Routine torture/extrajudicial punishment | Courts can enforce investigation and prosecution | Reinforced right to remedy and judicial intervention |
| Humayun Kabir v. Bangladesh (2005) | Torture causing injury | Torture violates fundamental rights; compensation allowed | Monetary relief for victims, deterrent for police |
| ASK v. Government (2010) | Systemic custodial abuse | Judicial directives for structural reform and training | Institutional measures to prevent torture |
Key Takeaways
Custodial torture is a violation of fundamental rights under the Bangladeshi Constitution.
Confessions obtained under torture are inadmissible in courts.
Courts have progressively ordered compensation, accountability, and structural reforms.
The Supreme Court of Bangladesh has evolved proactive custodial torture jurisprudence, balancing state authority with individual liberty and human rights.
Judicial activism has been instrumental in curbing arbitrary detention, extrajudicial punishment, and police misconduct.
RELATED Blog
0 comments