Police Misconduct And Custodial Torture Cases
π Legal Framework Against Police Misconduct & Custodial Torture
Article 21 of the Constitution of India β Guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.
Article 22 β Safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention.
Sections 330 and 331 of the IPC β Punish police officers who inflict injury to extort confession.
Section 167 & 176 of CrPC β Provide procedure for investigation in cases of torture and custodial deaths.
Indian Evidence Act, Section 25 & 26 β Confessions made under police pressure are inadmissible.
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 β Establishes NHRC and SHRCs to address such violations.
βοΈ Major Custodial Torture & Police Misconduct Cases in India
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 610
πΉ Facts:
D.K. Basu, a social activist, wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India highlighting increasing custodial deaths in West Bengal. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance.
πΉ Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down 11 guidelines for arrest and detention procedures to curb custodial violence. These included:
Arrest memo must be prepared and attested by a witness.
Family or friend of the arrested person must be informed.
Medical examination every 48 hours during detention.
Right to legal counsel.
Police officers must carry name tags for identification.
πΉ Significance:
This case forms the bedrock of procedural safeguards for arrested individuals and is frequently cited in cases of police misconduct.
2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Citation: AIR 1993 SC 1960
πΉ Facts:
Nilabati Behera filed a petition after her 22-year-old son died in police custody. The authorities claimed he escaped and died in a railway accident.
πΉ Judgment:
The Court held the State liable for violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 and awarded Rs. 1.5 lakhs as compensation.
πΉ Significance:
Established that compensation can be awarded in writ jurisdiction (Article 32/226) for custodial death, even without criminal prosecution of the accused.
3. Prakash Kadam & Others v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (2011)
Citation: (2011) 6 SCC 189
πΉ Facts:
Several police officers were involved in a fake encounter to eliminate a person allegedly on the orders of a rival businessman.
πΉ Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that police officers are not above the law and called such extrajudicial killings "cold-blooded murders." The Court rejected the plea for leniency due to their official status.
πΉ Significance:
Reinforced the principle that fake encounters amount to murder and must be treated as such, ensuring that police cannot act as executioners.
4. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy (2000)
Citation: (2000) 5 SCC 712
πΉ Facts:
A prisoner died in custody due to police firing while he was under judicial custody, highlighting negligence and abuse of power.
πΉ Judgment:
The Court held the State responsible for the death of a person in its custody. The right to life is not suspended even when a person is convicted or arrested.
πΉ Significance:
Reiterated that custodial safety is a State responsibility, and any breach invites constitutional remedies.
5. Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016)
Citation: (2016) 3 SCC 700
πΉ Facts:
A PIL was initiated based on a letter highlighting overcrowded, unsanitary, and violent conditions in Indian jails.
πΉ Judgment:
The Court issued various directives, including:
Proper medical facilities.
Oversight mechanisms.
Human rights training for prison staff.
Time-bound inquiries in cases of custodial torture.
πΉ Significance:
Not a direct torture case, but crucial in addressing systemic custodial cruelty and initiating prison reforms.
6. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994)
Citation: (1994) 4 SCC 260
πΉ Facts:
A young lawyer was picked up by police without informing his family or producing him before a magistrate.
πΉ Judgment:
The Supreme Court stated that arrest is not mandatory in every case and should be based on necessity, not routine procedure.
πΉ Significance:
Reinforced personal liberty and limited the arbitrary powers of the police to arrest, emphasizing that detention must have justified cause.
π§Ύ Observations & Impact
These judgments show how Indian judiciary has evolved in protecting the rights of detainees and punishing police brutality.
However, despite strong legal backing, implementation remains a challenge.
NHRC and SHRCs are often understaffed or lack enforcement powers.
In many cases, justice is delayed, or police personnel are shielded by political and institutional protection.
π Conclusion
Custodial torture and police misconduct represent a blatant violation of constitutional and human rights. The Indian judiciary, through landmark rulings, has tried to create a legal buffer against such abuse. However, law alone cannot eradicate the problemβit requires systemic reforms, police accountability, transparency in investigations, independent oversight, and public awareness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments