Menu

Custodial Deaths in India: A Human Rights Perspective

Publications, Research paper

Abstract

Custodial deaths defined as deaths occurring while a person is in the custody of the police or judiciary remain one of the most alarming and persistent human rights concerns in India. Such incidents not only erode faith in the justice system but also directly violate the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Despite repeated interventions by the Supreme Court through landmark cases such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, custodial violence continues to be reported with disturbing frequency. This paper examines the phenomenon of custodial deaths in India through a human rights perspective. It traces the constitutional and legal safeguards available to protect detainees, analyses judicial precedents, and reviews literature and data from institutions like the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR). The paper argues that weak enforcement of existing safeguards, absence of a comprehensive anti-torture law, and institutional biases are the primary causes behind the persistence of custodial deaths. Drawing from doctrinal and empirical insights, it proposes reforms such as enactment of a standalone anti-torture legislation, installation of technological safeguards, greater accountability of police officers, institutional oversight, fast-track courts, and embedding human-rights training into policing. Ultimately, preventing custodial deaths is not only a matter of legal reform but also a moral imperative for a democratic nation committed to the rule of law.

Keywords

  • Custodial Death
  • Human Rights
  • Legal Safeguards
  • Police Reform
  • Anti-Torture Legislation
  • Institutional Accountability

Introduction

The concept of custodial death strikes at the very core of the relationship between the State and its citizens. When an individual is deprived of liberty by the State whether through arrest, detention, or imprisonment the State assumes a heightened duty of care. Yet, ironically, the very institution tasked with upholding law and order has frequently been accused of violating the most fundamental right: the right to life.1

Custodial deaths are not merely accidents or natural outcomes of incarceration; in most cases, they are a consequence of custodial violence, police torture, negligence, or outright abuse of power. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly recognized the gravity of the issue, declaring in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa that compensation for custodial death is not an act of charity but a constitutional remedy under Article 21.2 Despite these declarations, custodial deaths remain rampant. NCRB reports reveal that between 2010–2020, India recorded more than 1,700 custodial deaths annually in judicial custody and close to 100 deaths annually in police custody.3

The persistence of this problem raises critical questions: Why have judicial safeguards and constitutional protections failed to translate into actual protection for detainees? Why do institutions like the NHRC appear toothless when it comes to accountability? And most importantly, what reforms are urgently needed to prevent further erosion of India’s human rights commitments?

This research seeks to answer these questions by adopting a human rights lens, situating custodial deaths in the broader context of systemic deficiencies in Indian policing, governance, and criminal justice.

Research Methodology

The research employs a doctrinal methodology supported by empirical data. Primary sources include constitutional provisions, statutory texts such as the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and key Supreme Court judgments. Secondary sources consist of reports from the NCRB, NHRC, SPIR, as well as scholarly articles and news reports highlighting specific custodial death cases.

A doctrinal approach allows for detailed analysis of the legal safeguards and judicial responses to custodial violence. The empirical component, meanwhile, highlights the gap between law and practice exposing how constitutional promises remain unfulfilled in real-world policing. The methodology is thus both analytical and critical, aiming not only to describe the problem but to propose practical solutions.

Review of Literature

A review of existing scholarship reveals recurring themes: the gap between law and enforcement, the culture of police impunity, and the need for legislative reform.

  1. IJCRT (2025) emphasizes the absence of a standalone anti-torture law in India despite international commitments such as the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). It highlights the Supreme Court’s role in creating judicial guidelines to fill legislative gaps but stresses their limited enforcement in practice.
  2. Legal Quorum (2025) documents systemic challenges such as political interference, lack of accountability mechanisms, and the near-impossibility of prosecuting police officers for custodial deaths. It also underscores the importance of judgments like D.K. Basu, where the Supreme Court laid down specific guidelines for arrest and detention.
  3. InsightsonIndia (2025) and NextIAS (2025) focus on technological reforms such as CCTV cameras, audio-visual recordings of interrogations, and body-worn cameras. They argue that these measures, combined with independent oversight, could significantly reduce custodial violence.
  4. SPIR 2025 paints a grim picture of police culture, revealing that 20% of police personnel surveyed believe harsh interrogation methods are justified. This reflects not merely institutional gaps but deep-seated attitudinal problems within Indian policing.
  5. Factly (2025) highlights the discrepancy between NHRC and NCRB data. While the NHRC recorded approximately 1,700 custodial deaths annually, NCRB figures were significantly lower. This discrepancy underscores weak reporting standards and accountability mechanisms.

Collectively, the literature reveals a consensus: custodial deaths are not merely about “bad apples” but reflect structural deficiencies that require both legislative and institutional reforms.

Method

This study is structured around five interrelated dimensions:

1. Constitutional and Statutory Safeguards

Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution guarantee protection against arbitrary arrest, right to life and liberty, and procedural safeguards for detainees. The CrPC and BNSS lay down procedures for arrests and interrogations, while the Indian Penal Code criminalizes acts of custodial violence. However, absence of explicit anti-torture legislation leaves gaps in the legal framework.

2. Judicial Interventions

The Supreme Court has consistently intervened in cases of custodial deaths. The landmark case D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) mandated 11 guidelines for arrest and detention, including the right to inform relatives, preparation of arrest memos, and mandatory medical examinations.4 In Nilabati Behera, the Court pioneered the principle of constitutional compensation. Yet, despite judicial activism, compliance remains inconsistent across states.

3. Institutional Mechanisms

The NHRC is empowered to investigate custodial deaths, but its recommendations are not binding. Police Complaints Authorities, envisaged by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, remain dysfunctional in most states. The result is a cycle of impunity, where officers accused of torture often escape prosecution.

4. Empirical Data

Data illustrates the scale of the problem. NCRB reported 155 deaths in police custody in 2021, while NHRC data shows thousands of deaths in judicial custody each year. Conviction rates for police personnel in such cases remain abysmally low, often below 5%.

5. Recent Developments

Recent cases illustrate both the persistence of the problem and emerging trends:

  • The Deva Pardi case in Madhya Pradesh (2024) led to CBI arresting a police inspector for custodial torture.
  • In Tamil Nadu, the death of Ajith Kumar sparked demands for a comprehensive anti-torture law.
  • Rajasthan revised its suspension protocols for officers implicated in custodial deaths, signaling a shift toward stricter accountability.
  • The Maharashtra Human Rights Commission ordered compensation in the Hirkane case, recognizing violation of Article 21

Suggestions

To reduce custodial deaths, reforms must go beyond symbolism and tackle structural deficiencies:

  1. Enact a Standalone Anti-Torture Law
    India signed the UNCAT in 1997 but has yet to ratify it. Enacting comprehensive anti-torture legislation is essential to criminalize torture explicitly and set deterrent penalties.
  2. Strengthen Institutional Oversight
    Police Complaints Authorities must be operationalized in every state with real investigative powers. NHRC recommendations should be made binding.
  3. Leverage Technology
    Mandatory CCTVs, audio-video recording of interrogations, and body-cams can deter abuse. Digital documentation of arrests and detention will strengthen accountability.
  4. Fast-Track Courts
    Specialized courts should handle custodial death cases to ensure swift justice, preventing dilution of evidence over time.
  5. Training and Cultural Reform
    Police training must integrate human rights education. The widespread acceptance of “third degree” methods must be replaced with scientific investigation techniques.
  6. Data Transparency
    A centralized, public database on custodial deaths, detailing follow-up actions, can enhance accountability and public trust.
  7. Compensation and Victim Support
    State human rights commissions must provide prompt compensation, legal aid, and psychological support to victims’ families.
  8. Public Awareness
    Citizens must be educated about their rights during arrest and detention, empowering them to demand adherence to due process.

Conclusion

Custodial deaths are not isolated aberrations but symptoms of a deeper malaise within the Indian criminal justice system. They reveal a troubling contradiction: the very institutions entrusted with safeguarding law and order frequently become violators of the law. While constitutional and judicial safeguards exist on paper, their weak enforcement and absence of legislative backing render them ineffective.

Real change requires a three-fold approach: legislative reform through an anti-torture law, institutional accountability via empowered oversight bodies, and cultural transformation in policing practices. Only then can India fulfill its constitutional promise of dignity and life for all individuals, including those in custody.

Until these reforms are enacted, custodial deaths will remain an enduring stain on India’s human rights record, undermining the credibility of its democracy and justice system.


Summited By
ASHUTOSH JHA
PRAYAG VIDHI MAHAVIDYALAYA