Custodial Deaths in India

Syllabus: GS2/ Governance

Context

• The Andhra Pradesh High Court (HC) ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged custodial death of Gade Sai Krishna.

Major Highlights of the HC Judgment

• The Andhra Pradesh High Court (HC) held that the State has a duty to enforce the human rights of citizens and provide for a fair and impartial investigation against any person accused of committing a cognizable offence, including their own officers.
  • In certain situations, even a witness to a crime may seek protection, and [they] should be granted protection by the State.
• It suggested following steps to be effective preventive measures: 
  • reorientation of police training that brings in the mindset required to recognise and respect human rights, 
  • continuous monitoring of the functioning of lower-level police officers to ensure adherence to lawful methods of investigation, 
  • introduction of simple and foolproof procedures for prompt registration of FIRs relating to all crimes and equipping the police with modern methods of record maintenance to avoid manipulations, 
  • insertions, substitutions and antedating in regard to FIRs, inquest proceedings, post-mortem reports and the like.

What is Custodial Death?

• Custodial death refers to the death of an individual while in police or judicial custody. This may occur before trial, during police interrogation, or after conviction.
  • The death may be caused by torture, negligence, denial of medical aid, or even under suspicious circumstances.
• It Violates the Constitutional Rights of;
  • Article 20(1): No person shall be punished beyond what is prescribed in law.
  • Article 20(3): Protection against self-incrimination; any confession made under duress is inadmissible.
  • Article 21: Ensures protection of life and personal liberty, including in police/judicial custody.
  • Article 22: Provides fundamental safeguards for individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention.
• Custodial Deaths in India: According to parliamentary data, 11,656 custodial deaths were recorded between 2016-17 and 2021-22, across India.
  • Uttar Pradesh topped the list with 2,630 deaths, while Tamil Nadu reported the highest number among the southern States.
  • As per the NCRB Data, A total of 170 custodial deaths were reported across the country in the first 74 days of 2026, which has surpassed the previous year’s figure of 140.
  • Bihar topped the list followed by Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.

Reasons of Higher Custodial Deaths in India

• Procedural Flaws and Delays: Supreme Court of India, in K Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997) Case, laid down guidelines to prevent custodial abuse. Despite the guidelines, courts often rely on magisterial inquiries and procedures leading to delays.
• Weak Accountability: Investigations into custodial deaths often lack independence, as they are conducted by the same police department implicated in the incident. Judicial inquiries are frequently delayed, lack transparency, and fail to deliver conclusive outcomes.
• Marginalisation and Vulnerable Groups: Most victims come from weaker socio-economic backgrounds, they lack legal literacy and resources preventing families from seeking justice.

Concerns

• Erosion of Rule of Law: It shows that constitutional safeguards that Article 21 Right to Life, Article 22 Protection against arbitrary arrest are being  violated. This undermines public confidence in the justice system.
• Human Rights Image: Internationally, India faces criticism in UNHRC, Human Rights Watch reports. This weakens India’s moral authority when it speaks about human rights issues in other countries.
• Police-State Perception: High custodial deaths may create a perception of India as a police state rather than a welfare-oriented democracy.
• Weak Criminal Justice System: This projects inefficiency in adopting modern policing, forensics, and technology-driven methods.

International Legal Frameworks for Protection

• United Nations Charter (1945): It sets out the purposes and principles of the UN, including the promotion of human rights.
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): It prohibits torture and ensures the presumption of innocence.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966): It protects right to life and prohibits torture.
• The Nelson Mandela Rules, officially known as the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners 2015, establish minimum standards for the humane treatment of all individuals deprived of their liberty.
• European Convention on Human Rights (1950): It recognises individual dignity and access to justice mechanisms.

Major SC Judgements and Recommendations for Reforms

SC Judgements: 

• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993): The Court established that the State is under a strict liability to pay monetary compensation to the families of victims whose fundamental right to life (Article 21) is violated via custodial violence.
• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): The Supreme Court issued 11 mandatory requirements for every arrest. This includes displaying clear identification tags for interrogating officers, preparing a formal arrest memo signed by at least one witness, informing a relative within 8–12 hours, and performing medical examinations every 48 hours while in custody.
• Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006) directives: Directed the separation of investigation wings from regular law-and-order wings to avoid bias, and mandated the creation of Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs) at state and district levels to look into serious misconduct like custodial death.
• Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh (2020): The Supreme Court explicitly directed mandatory Use of Technology, CCTV coverage in interrogation rooms, digital records of questioning, and body cameras must become the norm.

Law Commission of India Reports & Recommendations:

• 69th Report (1977): Proposed reforms to evidentiary rules regarding confessions made before senior officers to prevent the structural incentive for “third-degree” methods aimed at extraction.
• 273rd Report on Implementation of United Nations Convention Against Torture (2017): Recommended that India enact a comprehensive, dedicated domestic law to criminalize and systematically eliminate custodial torture.
  • Urged the creation of fast-track courts specifically dedicated to trying custodial crimes to prevent cases from dragging on for years.
  • Advised harsh criminal penalties, up to life imprisonment, along with fine adjustments for complicit public officials to ensure direct institutional accountability.
• Criminal Law Reforms (2023): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (replacing CrPC) introduces provisions for greater transparency in arrests, use of forensic methods, and citizen-centric procedures.
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 modernise penal and evidentiary laws, reducing dependence on confession-based policing.

Conclusion

• Despite providing fundamental rights, legal safeguards and major judicial judgements the cases of custodial abuse and deaths in India are present.
  • India must uphold its constitutional values along with aligning with its international obligations.
• As mentioned in various Law Commission reports and pronouncements of SC judgements, the Parliament must enact a comprehensive anti-torture law, strengthening institutions, and ensuring accountability.

Source: TH