Custodial Violence and Police Accountability

Custodial Violence in India — Overview

Introduction

Custodial violence — the abuse of individuals while in police or judicial custody — remains one of the serious human rights concerns in India. Sadly, such cases are still reported in India despite laws meant to prevent them. Protecting the rights of people in custody is not just about following the law; it’s about safeguarding basic human dignity and holding the police accountable for their actions. In this article, we will look at what custodial violence means, its different forms, and some key cases and laws that highlight the issue.

Background

In Tamil Nadu, the recent death of Ajith Kumar, a 27-year-old temple guard from Sivaganga, is heartbreaking but sadly not unusual. Between 2021 and 2025, several similar cases have occurred. In 2022, Vignesh, a 25-year-old detained in Chennai, died within hours and his autopsy showed multiple injuries. In 2023, a 30-year-old autorickshaw driver in Tiruchi died under suspicious circumstances. From April 2017 to March 2022, there were 669 reported deaths of people in police custody across India. According to the Global Torture Index 2025, “India is classified as a ‘high risk’ country for torture and custodial brutality.”

These repeated incidents show that custodial violence is a serious ongoing issue in our system.

What is Custodial Violence?

The term “custodial violence” refers to the inhuman treatment of individuals in police or judicial custody. It means any physical, mental, or emotional harm caused to a person. It includes actions like torture, beating, sexual abuse, verbal humiliation, denial of basic needs, or even deaths that happen in police stations, prisons, or during investigations. In simple terms, it is any kind of mistreatment or abuse faced by someone who has been detained or arrested.

Holding people without legal reason, making wrongful arrests, treating suspects badly, forcing them to give information, and using physical, mental, or sexual abuse are all examples of custodial violence.

Forms of Custodial Violence

Custodial violence in India is a serious problem that takes many troubling forms. Many people have seen or heard of police using excessive force like slapping or beating people with lathis in the name of maintaining law and order. Poor conditions like overcrowding, lack of proper food, dirty surroundings, and limited medical care make the situation even worse. Custodial violence includes many kinds of abuse, which can be grouped into different types:

1. Physical Abuse: This is the most visible form. It includes beating, electric shocks, or any physical torture during interrogation or detention. Sometimes it can even lead to serious injuries or death.
2. Emotional and Psychological Abuse: Harm does not have to be physical. Threats, verbal abuse, intimidation, and humiliation can leave deep emotional scars. Prolonged solitary confinement or constant mental pressure can cause severe stress or trauma.
3. Sexual Violence: In some cases, detained persons — especially women and vulnerable groups — face sexual harassment or assault in custody. This is one of the most dehumanizing and underreported forms of abuse.
4. Unauthorized Arrest and Detention: Keeping someone in custody without a legal reason or arresting them without proper procedure is also custodial violence. Individuals may be unlawfully detained for prolonged periods without being formally charged or presented before a judicial authority.
5. Denial of Basic Rights: Denying basic rights means not giving people the legal protections and support they are entitled to. This could include preventing them from meeting a lawyer or making it difficult to get a fair hearing in court.
6. Forced Confession: Forced confession refers to obtaining confessions through coercion, threats, or torture. Many times, people are misled or pressured to admit to crimes they did not commit.

Breach of Article 21

Article 21 of the Constitution says: “No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” This means every person, even the accused or convicted of a crime, has the right to live with dignity and to be treated fairly under the law.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to life is not just about survival but also about living with dignity. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), the Court ruled that prisoners also have fundamental rights and cannot be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983), the Court addressed abuse of women in custody, emphasizing that dignity must be protected even for those detained.

The Prevention of Torture Bill

India has faced repeated criticism for failing to have a strong law directly addressing custodial torture. Even though the Supreme Court has laid down safeguards and the Constitution protects the dignity of every person, many cases of abuse continue. To meet international commitments like the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), lawmakers have tried to introduce specific legislation. Two important attempts were the Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010 and the Prevention of Torture Bill, 2022.

The Prevention of Torture Bill was introduced to provide punishment for torture inflicted by public servants or any person inflicting torture with the acquiescence of any public servant. The bill proposed a minimum punishment of 3 years, which may be extended up to 10 years, and a fine for torture inflicted to extort confession, or for punishing on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, community, or any other ground.

The Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Lok Sabha to give effect to the Convention. The bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on May 6, 2010. The Rajya Sabha referred the bill to a Select Committee which proposed amendments. However, the bill lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha. In 2017 and 2018, the bill was introduced as a private member’s bill in Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha respectively, but the latter lapsed due to the dissolution of the 16th Lok Sabha.

Despite these proposals, neither the 2010 nor the 2022 Prevention of Torture Bill has become law. The absence of a dedicated anti-torture statute leaves gaps in accountability and makes custodial violence harder to curb.

Role of the NHRC

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was set up under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to protect and promote human rights in India. Custodial violence is one of its key concerns. The NHRC has set clear rules to be followed whenever a custodial death occurs. It has powers similar to those of a civil court and can hold inquiries suo motu. This authority helps act as a warning to prevent future cases of custodial violence.

The guidelines issued by the committee include:

• In cases of custodial deaths, a magisterial inquiry would be conducted.
• The magistrate must visit the crime scene, gather all important details, record evidence, and identify witnesses.
• Issue of public notice to witnesses.
• Detainees should be examined at regular intervals to detect signs of torture or ill treatment.
• Arrested individuals must be allowed to meet family members and lawyers.
• Recording of statements of family members, relatives, and witnesses.
• A detailed report must be prepared on time.
• Police and prison staff should undergo regular training on human rights standards, lawful interrogation methods, and the rights of detainees.

Landmark Cases

• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, 1993
  Facts: Suman Behera, the petitioner’s son, was arrested by the police and the next day his dead body was found on the railway track with multiple injuries. The police claimed he escaped and died on the railway track but the evidence showed otherwise.
  Judgement: The Supreme Court found that the injuries were inflicted while he was in custody, indicating custodial violence. The Court held that providing compensation is the responsibility of the State and awarded compensation.
• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997
  This case is important because the Supreme Court recognized custodial violence and police brutality, and issued 11 guidelines to prevent abuse during arrest and detention. These include:
  1. Police officers must wear name tags showing their rank when making an arrest or carrying out an interrogation.
  2. An arrest memo must be prepared, signed by the person being arrested and verified by a family member or a respected local person. It should clearly mention the date and time of the arrest.
  3. Anyone arrested or detained has the right to have a friend, relative, or trusted person informed as soon as possible about their arrest and where they are being held.
  4. The arrested person must be made aware of his rights.
  5. An entry must be made in the diary of the place of detention, naming the friend who has been informed and the public officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
  6. If the arrested person’s friend or relative lives outside the district or town, they must be told within 8–12 hours about the time and place of arrest and where the person is being held.
  7. If the arrested person asks, he should be medically examined when taken into custody. Any injuries, major or minor, must be noted in an inspection memo. This memo should be signed by both the arrested person and the police officer making the arrest, and a copy must be given to the arrested person.
  8. The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours.
  9. Copies of all documents, including the memo of arrest, should be sent to the Magistrate for his record.
  10. Arrestees may be permitted to meet their lawyer during interrogation.
  11. Every district must have a police control room and details of arrest must be sent there within 12 hours.
• Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1994
  Facts: Joginder Kumar, a lawyer, was taken into custody for questioning but was not formally arrested or informed of the reasons for detention. He was kept for several days without being presented before a magistrate or allowed to inform his family. His relatives filed a habeas corpus petition.
  Judgement: The Court ruled that arrests must have valid reasons and not be arbitrary. Police must inform relatives, record reasons for arrest, and follow legal safeguards.
• Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, 1983
  Facts: Rudul Shah had been acquitted of murder charges but remained in jail for 14 extra years because the release order was not executed. Even after multiple representations, authorities failed to release him or provide any explanation. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 for unlawful detention and sought compensation.
  Judgement: The Supreme Court recognized that Rudul Shah’s 14-year illegal detention violated his fundamental rights under Article 21. The Court ordered the Bihar government to pay compensation and recommended his rehabilitation.
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1978
  Facts: Sunil Batra, a prisoner on death row in Tihar Jail, wrote to the Supreme Court alleging brutal torture of a fellow inmate by jail officials and inhuman treatment of prisoners. His letter was treated as a writ petition under Article 32.
  Judgement: The Court expanded Article 21 protections to prisoners, stating that imprisonment does not strip a person of fundamental rights. It prohibited unnecessary solitary confinement and inhuman or degrading treatment.
• Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, 1983
  Facts: Journalist Sheela Barse wrote to the Supreme Court after interviewing several women detainees in Maharashtra’s police lockups. She reported sexual harassment, poor conditions, and lack of legal aid for women prisoners. The letter was converted into a writ petition.
  Judgement: The Court stressed special safeguards for women and children in custody. It directed the State to ensure female detainees are kept in separate lockups guarded by female police personnel and provided immediate legal aid.

Rights of an Arrested Person

Protecting an arrestee’s rights is not merely a procedural formality; it is a crucial safeguard against abuse. By ensuring that every person taken into custody is treated with fairness and dignity, the justice system reinforces public trust and holds law enforcement accountable.

Constitutional Rights

1. Article 20(3): Protection Against Self-Incrimination
   No person accused of an offence can be compelled to testify against themselves. This prevents forced confessions or coercion during interrogation.
2. Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
   Guarantees that no one shall be deprived of life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Courts interpret this to include the right to live with dignity and protection from torture or cruel treatment.
3. Article 22(1) and (2): Rights upon Arrest
   The arrested person must be informed of the reasons for arrest, has the right to consult a lawyer of their choice, and must be presented before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
4. Article 39A: Free Legal Aid
   Ensures free legal assistance for those who cannot afford a lawyer, reinforcing equality before the law.

Rights under BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), 2023

1. Right to be Informed: Section 47(1) mentions that the police officer making an arrest without warrant shall inform the person arrested of the grounds of the offence for which they have been arrested.
2. Right to be Released on Bail: Section 47(2) states that if the accused has committed a bailable offence, the police officer must inform the arrested person about the right to be released on bail.
3. Right to be Taken before a Magistrate without Delay: According to Section 58, the police officer making an arrest, whether with or without warrant, is bound to produce the accused within 24 hours.
4. Right to be Medically Examined: Sections 52 and 53 provide the right of medical examination of the accused.

Apart from this, Section 43 sets limits on how an arrest must be made, ensuring force or physical restraint is used only when necessary.

Provision under BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), 2023

Section 127(8) punishes anyone who wrongfully confines a person to force a confession.

Recent Scenario

Custodial deaths and police brutality remain serious concerns across India. In 2024, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recorded 2,739 custodial deaths, a notable rise from 2,400 deaths in 2023. Prison conditions continue to be poor with 1,955 deaths reported in judicial custody in 2022, including 159 unnatural deaths. Over 75% of inmates are under trial.

At the state level, Rajasthan recorded 20 custodial deaths in police lockups between August 2023 and August 2025: 12 from health issues (including 6 heart attacks) and 6 from suicides. Recently in Harimpur, Uttar Pradesh, undertrial Anil Kumar Tiwari died in jail with injury marks suggesting torture. In May 2025, a man in Deoghar, Jharkhand, died in police custody after cyber crime interrogation, and his family alleged he was tortured. These cases highlight the urgent need for reforms to prevent abuse.

Conclusion

Custodial violence is still a serious problem in India, violating the basic right to life and dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Recent deaths and reports point to a lack of accountability and poor prison conditions. To stop this, stricter action, better police training, proper monitoring like CCTV in lockups, and stronger laws are needed.

Custodial Violence References

• https://www.thehindu.com (end custodial brutality, begins criminal justice system)
• https://nhrc.nic.in
• https://www.nextias.com (custodial brutality in India and criminal justice system)
• Custodial Violence and its Impact by Prisha Jain (https://papers.ssrn.com)
• Custodial violence: A study on existing legal frameworks, victim compensation mechanism and use of technology in its Prevention by Lumina L
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/custodial-violence/
• https://sabrangindia.iprevention-torture-bill-forgotten-l-law/
• https://cjp.org.in/law-on-arrest-and-detention-know-your-rights/
• https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/first-ever-global-torture-index-flags-india-as-high-risk-country
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/20-deaths-in-raj-police-custody-2yrs-govt-report-indicates-a-pattern/articleshow/123739526.cms
• https://www.pib.gov.in (NHRC, India takes suo moto cognizance of the reported death of a man in police custody in Deoghar district, Jharkhand)

Books

• The Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 20(3), 21, 22(1) and (2), 39A.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 47(1) and (2), 58, 52, 53, 43.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 127(8).

Cases

1. Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494
2. Sheela Barse vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 378
3. Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa, 1993
4. D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal, 1997 (https://Barnala.punjabpolice.gov.in/d-k-basu-case-guidelines/)
5. Rudul Shah vs State of Bihar, 1983
6. Joginder Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 1994