In the echoing corridors of Indian jails and police stations, justice often dies a quiet, brutal death—without a trial, without a witness, and sometimes, without even a name on the record. Custodial deaths in India are not just tragic statistics tucked away in the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reports; they are visceral reminders of how a democratic state, built on the rule of law, can sometimes betray its own citizens with silent, sanctioned violence.

The Phantom of Power: Understanding Custodial Deaths

Custodial death refers to the demise of a person in the custody of law enforcement or judicial authorities. While it could stem from natural causes, more often, these deaths are steeped in allegations of torture, abuse, and neglect. Between 2001 and 2018, India officially reported 1,723 such deaths. Activists, however, estimate the real number to be far higher, buried under bureaucratic evasions and unregistered cases. Victims are usually not hardened criminals but everyday individuals: poor, marginalized, voiceless. Arrested often on flimsy grounds, they are pushed into a labyrinth of fear and trauma from which many do not return alive. The stories are endless, yet invisible in the public narrative.
 

A Case That Shook the Nation: The Sathankulam Tragedy

Take, for instance, the infamous case of Jayaraj and Bennicks from Tamil Nadu in 2020. A father and son duo, allegedly tortured to death by the police for keeping their mobile shop open past COVID curfew hours. The extent of their injuries shocked even seasoned forensic experts. They died not because of a court's verdict, but from brutal custodial beatings, highlighting the worst of institutional impunity. Their case sparked rare nationwide outrage, resulting in the arrest of police personnel and compensation from the state—measures that are, unfortunately, exceptions rather than the rule.
 

Colonial Shadows: A Historical Context

The roots of custodial torture in India trace back to colonial policing. The Indian Police Act of 1861 was never designed to serve the people—it was meant to control them. While India has since adopted a progressive Constitution and myriad human rights commitments, the legacy of brutality and mistrust remains. Law enforcement structures are still haunted by the authoritarian mindset of their colonial predecessors. In post-independence India, despite the growth of institutions and the rise of democratic checks, the police often remain under political influence, poorly trained, and structurally unaccountable.
 

The Legal Maze: Laws That Exist, but Fall Short

On paper, India has an impressive array of legal protections:

• Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
• Sections 330 and 331 of the IPC punish custodial torture.
• CrPC Sections 41 to 60A outline arrest protocols.
• The Indian Evidence Act (Sections 25 & 26) excludes confessions made to police as admissible evidence.

Yet, custodial deaths continue unabated. Why? The answer lies not in the absence of laws, but in their poor enforcement. Conviction rates in custodial death cases are abysmally low. According to NCRB data, of the nearly 900 complaints filed between 2001 and 2020, only 26 police personnel were convicted. The judicial system, notorious for its delays, fails victims and their families. Legal procedures that should protect detainees are often weaponized against them. Bail is denied, FIRs are not registered, and medical reports are manipulated.
 

Landmark Judgments: Beacons in the Fog

Some judicial pronouncements have tried to pierce through the darkness. The D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) case remains foundational. The Supreme Court laid down 11 guidelines for arrest and detention procedures, including mandatory documentation, medical checks, and informing relatives. In Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, the Court emphasized that arrests should not be mechanical and must be justified with reasons. However, even these judgments remain largely aspirational, failing to translate into routine police practice. A chasm persists between legal pronouncements and ground reality.
 

The NHRC: Watchdog or Paper Tiger?

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was established in 1993 with the intent to safeguard human dignity. It receives hundreds of complaints related to custodial abuse annually, recommends compensations, and occasionally initiates suo motu inquiries. Yet, its recommendations are non-binding. It lacks enforcement powers. In many cases, state governments either delay or completely ignore the NHRC's findings. With no prosecutorial authority and limited investigative resources, the NHRC often ends up being more symbolic than substantive.
 

Comparative Insights: What the World Is Doing Right

Globally, several countries have enacted robust mechanisms to check custodial abuse:

• The UK has the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), an autonomous body with powers to investigate police misconduct.
• The US, despite its own issues with police brutality, mandates body cameras, Miranda rights, and a functioning civil damages system.
• The UN Convention Against Torture, which India signed in 1997 but has yet to ratify, could have provided the framework for criminalizing torture explicitly.

India's reluctance to ratify the convention signals a deeper hesitation to reform the culture of policing.

The Unheard: Testimonies from the Shadows

In the words of a 24-year-old man from Uttar Pradesh, who survived police torture:

"They didn't ask questions. They made me kneel on bricks, beat me with belts and sticks. I couldn't walk for days. I confessed to a crime I didn't even understand."

His family sold their only land to get him released. Such stories rarely make it to courtrooms, let alone headlines.
 

Intersectionality: When Identity Shapes Injustice

• Custodial deaths disproportionately impact Dalits, Muslims, tribals, and the poor.
• The marginalized are more likely to be detained without cause, denied legal aid, or become victims of third-degree torture.
• Gender adds another layer. Women in custody face not only physical abuse but also sexual violence—often unreported due to stigma or fear of reprisal.
• This intersectionality—of caste, class, gender, and religion—reveals the systemic rot in custodial structures.
   

Media & Civil Society: Catalysts for Change

• The role of media in bringing these atrocities to light cannot be overstated.
• Investigative journalism and viral social media campaigns have often forced authorities to act.
• Civil society groups, such as People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Amnesty India, tirelessly document, petition, and protest.
• Yet, they often work in hostile environments, facing threats, FIRs, and surveillance.
   

Where Do We Go from Here? A Roadmap for Reform

1. Police Reforms: Implement the Supreme Court's 2006 directives in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, mandating fixed tenure, separation of law and order from investigation, and establishment of Police Complaints Authorities.
2. Ratify the UN Convention Against Torture: Enact comprehensive anti-torture legislation with strict punishment for violators.
3. Institutional Accountability: Strengthen NHRC's investigative powers, grant it enforcement capabilities, and make compensation mandatory.
4. Transparency Tools: Mandate CCTV in all police stations and custodial centers, monitored by independent panels.
5. Legal Aid & Awareness: Increase funding for public defenders, especially for the poor and marginalized.
6. Fast-Track Courts: Set up dedicated courts for custodial crimes to ensure swift justice.
    

Conclusion: Justice Must Not End Where Custody Begins

Custodial deaths are not merely lapses in police conduct; they are brutal manifestations of state violence. They mock the very ideals enshrined in our Constitution—liberty, dignity, and justice. Every time a detainee dies in custody, it is not just a life lost—it is a collective failure of our institutions, a crack in the edifice of democracy.

To remain silent is to be complicit. To look away is to endorse impunity. The time has come to echo what the Constitution promises and what humanity demands: no death without due process, no torture in the name of order, and no justice behind closed doors.

"When justice becomes a silent spectator to suffering within its own walls, custodial deaths cease to be mere tragedies — they become indictments of a broken system.