Reforms For Custodial Deaths
Custodial deaths refer to the death of a person while in police or judicial custody. These deaths often raise serious concerns about human rights violations, torture, and abuse of power. Custodial deaths indicate failures in the criminal justice system and highlight the need for reforms to ensure accountability, transparency, and the protection of fundamental rights.
Key Areas of Reform:
Police Accountability and Transparency:
Introduction of independent investigations and oversight bodies (such as Human Rights Commissions).
Mandatory judicial inquiries into custodial deaths.
Video recording of interrogations and custodial conditions.
Legal Safeguards:
Strict adherence to legal procedures and constitutional protections under Articles 20(3), 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution.
Enforcement of the Torture Victim Protection Act or equivalent legal frameworks against custodial torture.
Timely production of accused persons before magistrates.
Training and Sensitization of Police:
Regular human rights training.
Sensitization on the prohibition of torture and custodial violence.
Compensation and Rehabilitation:
Provision of compensation to victims' families.
Rehabilitation programs for survivors of custodial torture.
Judicial Oversight:
Courts playing an active role in monitoring custodial deaths and ordering compensation.
Guidelines for police conduct and custodial care.
Landmark Case Laws on Custodial Deaths
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts: This case arose after several incidents of custodial deaths and torture in West Bengal.
Judgment: The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to be followed during arrests and detention to prevent custodial torture and death.
Key Directions:
Arrest memo to be prepared and attested by a family member or a respectable person.
Police must inform family members about the arrest.
Medical examination of the detainee at the time of arrest and during detention.
A police diary to be maintained with entries on arrests and detentions.
The detainee should be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
Significance: The guidelines serve as mandatory procedures to safeguard detainees and prevent custodial deaths.
2. Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India (2006)
Facts: Petition filed to reform the police system, including issues of custodial deaths and torture.
Judgment: The Supreme Court issued directives for police reforms aimed at enhancing accountability.
Key Directions:
Setting up of State Security Commissions to oversee police functioning.
Selection and tenure of police officers to be fixed to reduce political interference.
Establishment of Police Complaints Authorities at state and district levels.
Significance: Institutional reforms to reduce arbitrariness and abuse of power by police.
3. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Facts: The petitioner’s son died in police custody under suspicious circumstances.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that custodial deaths violate the right to life guaranteed under Article 21.
Key Outcome:
The Court awarded compensation to the victim’s family.
Emphasized that the state is liable for the custodial death as it failed in its duty to protect life.
Significance: Established the principle of state accountability and compensation for custodial deaths.
4. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (1997)
Facts: The case involved death of a detainee allegedly due to police torture.
Judgment: The Supreme Court directed the state to pay compensation and called for strict adherence to the safeguards against torture.
Key Points:
Reaffirmed D.K. Basu guidelines.
Called for more stringent action against errant police officers.
Significance: Reinforced the judiciary’s proactive role in preventing custodial violence.
5. Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986)
Facts: Petition related to inhuman conditions in police custody and mental torture of detainees.
Judgment: The Supreme Court issued directives on the treatment of prisoners and custodial conditions.
Key Directions:
Police officers must maintain humane treatment of detainees.
Regular medical check-ups.
Proper documentation and judicial scrutiny.
Significance: Addressed custodial torture and mental harassment as violations of fundamental rights.
Summary
The judiciary has played a crucial role in setting standards and guidelines to curb custodial deaths.
There is a clear emphasis on accountability, compensation, and reforms in police administration.
Despite guidelines, implementation remains a challenge, requiring constant vigilance, legal reforms, and awareness.
Courts continue to uphold the constitutional right to life and dignity against custodial torture and death.
RELATED Blog
0 comments