Custodial Violence And Reforms
๐ What is Custodial Violence?
Custodial violence refers to torture, assault, abuse, or death of individuals in the custody of police, judicial or other authorities. It includes:
Physical torture
Mental/psychological torture
Sexual abuse
Illegal detention
Death or disappearance in custody
Custodial violence violates fundamental human rights and is often underreported or goes unpunished due to fear, systemic bias, and lack of transparency.
๐ Legal and Constitutional Framework
| Provision | Description |
|---|---|
| Article 21 | Right to life and personal liberty โ includes right against torture |
| Article 22 | Rights of arrested persons (legal aid, right to be informed, etc.) |
| Section 49, CrPC | No unnecessary restraint |
| Section 54, CrPC | Medical examination of accused |
| Section 176, CrPC | Inquiry into custodial deaths |
| Indian Penal Code | Sections 330, 331, 376(2), 302 โ for torture, sexual assault, murder in custody |
| Evidence Act, Sec 24-27 | Confession under coercion is inadmissible |
| SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act | Additional safeguards for Dalits and Tribals in custody |
โ๏ธ Landmark Case Laws on Custodial Violence
โ๏ธ 1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
(1997) 1 SCC 416
๐น Facts:
Petition filed highlighting increasing incidents of custodial deaths and torture across Indian states.
๐งพ Judgment:
Supreme Court laid down guidelines for arrest and detention to prevent custodial torture.
These include:
Memo of arrest,
Right to inform a relative,
Medical examination every 48 hours,
Right to legal counsel,
Magistrate to be informed.
โ Importance:
Treated as the bedrock of custodial reform jurisprudence.
Guidelines now followed across India and treated as enforceable law.
โ๏ธ 2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
(1993) 2 SCC 746
๐น Facts:
A 22-year-old boy died in police custody. His mother filed a writ petition.
๐งพ Judgment:
Supreme Court awarded compensation of โน1,50,000, holding the state vicariously liable.
Held that Article 21 is violated when custodial death occurs.
Right to compensation is a public law remedy.
โ Importance:
Established state liability for custodial deaths.
Recognized compensation as a constitutional remedy under Article 32.
โ๏ธ 3. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.
(1994) 4 SCC 260
๐น Facts:
Advocate was taken into custody without being informed or produced before magistrate.
๐งพ Judgment:
Held that arrest is a serious infringement of liberty, and must not be routine.
Police must justify arrest with valid reasons.
Person arrested must be informed of the reason and allowed to inform relatives.
โ Importance:
Reinforced procedural safeguards under Articles 21 and 22.
Arrest cannot be arbitrary or secretive.
โ๏ธ 4. Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta
(2011) 6 SCC 189
๐น Facts:
Police officers were involved in a fake encounter killing.
๐งพ Judgment:
Supreme Court held that fake encounters amount to cold-blooded murder.
Observed that "police brutality erodes rule of law."
Upheld life sentence of guilty officers.
โ Importance:
Clear stance that law enforcement officers are not above the law.
Fake encounters are custodial killings and must be punished.
โ๏ธ 5. Sube Singh v. State of Haryana
(2006) 3 SCC 178
๐น Facts:
Complainant and family were illegally detained and tortured by police for filing a case.
๐งพ Judgment:
Reiterated the D.K. Basu guidelines.
Directed disciplinary action and departmental inquiry.
Declined compensation due to lack of evidence of physical injury but emphasized public law remedy.
โ Importance:
Re-emphasized stateโs duty to protect complainants and prevent misuse of power.
โ๏ธ 6. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh
(2012) 8 SCC 1
๐น Facts:
Businessman was falsely implicated and tortured in custody.
๐งพ Judgment:
Supreme Court awarded โน5 lakh compensation.
Described custodial torture as โdemonic actsโ violating human dignity.
Held that personal liberty and dignity cannot be compromised.
โ Importance:
Reaffirmed compensation and accountability.
Strong language used to denounce torture by state agents.
โ๏ธ 7. Peopleโs Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India
(2014 SC Judgment on Encounter Guidelines)
๐น Facts:
PUCL challenged the increasing number of encounter killings by police.
๐งพ Judgment:
Supreme Court laid down 16-point guidelines for investigating police encounters.
Independent probe, FIR, and judicial inquiry mandated.
โ Importance:
Treats encounters as custodial killings unless proven otherwise.
Strengthened accountability mechanisms.
๐ก๏ธ Reforms Suggested & Implemented
๐ธ 1. D.K. Basu Guidelines (1997)
Still the gold standard for procedural safeguards.
๐ธ 2. National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
Mandates reporting of every custodial death within 24 hours.
Recommends compensation, investigation, and action.
๐ธ 3. Law Commission of India Reports
152nd, 177th, and 273rd Reports: Strongly recommended enacting a law against custodial torture.
Advocated for ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT).
๐ธ 4. Draft Prevention of Torture Bill, 2017
Introduced in Rajya Sabha, but not passed.
Aimed at criminalizing torture with specific punishments.
๐ธ 5. SC Guidelines on Police Reforms โ Prakash Singh Case
Fixed tenures for DGPs.
Separation of investigation and law-and-order wings.
Establishment of Police Complaints Authorities.
๐ Challenges in Ending Custodial Violence
| Problem | Description |
|---|---|
| Lack of accountability | Rare convictions of police officials |
| Fear of reprisal | Victims fear lodging complaints |
| Poor legal awareness | Victims unaware of rights |
| Institutional bias | Police often protect colleagues |
| No anti-torture law | India has not ratified UNCAT or passed anti-torture law |
๐ง Key Takeaways
| Principle | Position |
|---|---|
| Custodial violence violates Article 21 | Right to life includes protection from torture |
| D.K. Basu guidelines are mandatory | Enforced as binding law |
| Compensation is a constitutional remedy | Courts can grant compensation under writ jurisdiction |
| Police are accountable under IPC | Can be charged for murder, assault, etc. |
| Reforms are necessary but lagging | Legislative and police reforms are pending |
๐ Conclusion
Custodial violence is one of the most serious violations of constitutional and human rights in India. Despite strong legal safeguards and repeated Supreme Court directions, implementation remains weak due to institutional resistance and lack of accountability.
Reforms like enacting anti-torture laws, ratifying UNCAT, strengthening NHRC powers, police reforms, and training in human rights are essential to create a custodial system that respects dignity, liberty, and justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments