Supreme Court Panel Flags Massive Custodial Death Probe Delays

Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance

Context

• A Supreme Court panel has released a comprehensive report on prison reforms, revealing deep systemic gaps in the investigation of custodial deaths. 

Major Highlights

• Delays in custodial death probe: It highlighted severe delays in forensic examinations due to a 52% staff vacancy in state forensic labs. 
  • As a result, 1,237 enquiries into custodial deaths remained pending in district courts for over a year as of 2023.
  • Prisoners who died in custody are often subject to lengthy investigations. 
• Issues in Prison Administration: Prison manuals refer to prison work related to conservancy and sanitation as ‘menial’ or ‘work of degrading character’, which perpetuates a hierarchical view of labour.
  • In some states, prison manuals continue to retain provisions which perpetuate caste-based prejudices by assigning prison work based on the caste identity.
• Disparity in Payments: Significant disparities exist in the daily wages paid to prisoners, with amounts ranging from Rs 20 in Mizoram to Rs 524 in Karnataka.
  • Several states pay prisoners much less than the prescribed minimum wage for their labour.
• Mental Health Care: The jail medical officers in most states have not received the required training in mental health care, which is a violation of the 2018 Mental Health Act and affects the well-being of inmates.
• Delays in Judicial Process: Delays in the judicial process, especially for accused persons in custody for more than a year, are a significant challenge in India’s legal system.

Custodial Deaths in India

• According to the National Human Rights Commission, there were 11,650 deaths in custody in India between 2016 and 2022.
  • Uttar Pradesh alone has reported 2,630 custodial deaths, the highest in the country. 
• Magisterial Inquiries: A 2023 analysis of NHRC and government data reveals between 2017 and 2022, only 345 magisterial inquiries were ordered nationwide into custodial deaths, resulting in just 123 arrests. 
• Vulnerable Groups: NHRC data reveals that 71% of custodial deaths between 1996 and 2018 involved detainees from poor or vulnerable backgrounds. 

Why Custodial Deaths are Rampant in India?

• Colonial Legacy of Policing: The Indian police system is still heavily influenced by the Police Act of 1861, designed for control rather than service.
• Weak Accountability Mechanisms: Investigations into custodial deaths are often carried out by the same police department, leading to bias.
• Torture as a Tool of Investigation: Due to poor training and lack of forensic infrastructure, police often resort to third-degree methods to extract confessions.
• Marginalisation and Vulnerable Groups: Most victims come from weaker socio-economic backgrounds. Lack of legal literacy and resources prevents families from seeking justice.
• Poor Implementation of Safeguards: Safeguards under Article 21 & 22 of the Constitution, D.K. Basu guidelines (1997), NHRC directives, and Supreme Court judgments are often ignored.
  • Mandatory requirements like medical examinations, arrest memos, and informing relatives are routinely violated.

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 routinely 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: The weak criminal justice system in India is characterized by inefficiencies in adopting modern policing, forensic science, and technology-driven methods.

Legal Initiatives to Curb Custodial Deaths in India

• Supreme Court Guidelines (D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, 1997): It laid down mandatory arrest and detention safeguards: informing relatives, maintaining arrest memo, medical examination, legal counsel, production before magistrate within 24 hours.
  • These guidelines are treated as enforceable law under Article 141.
• National Human Rights Commission (NHRC): NHRC requires mandatory reporting of all custodial deaths within 24 hours.
  • Issues advisories and seeks compliance reports from states.
• Supreme Court Directions on CCTV Cameras (2020, Paramvir Singh Saini Case): Directed installation of CCTV cameras with night vision and audio in all police stations and prisons.
  • Ordered independent committees at state and district levels for monitoring.
• Judicial Oversight: High Courts and the Supreme Court regularly intervene in custodial death cases, order compensation, and monitor police reforms.
• 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

• Custodial deaths remain a concern for India’s democratic and constitutional values.
• While the government has introduced legal safeguards, judicial directions, and institutional mechanisms, their effectiveness depends on strict enforcement, police reforms, and a shift towards technology-driven investigations.

Source: IT