CUSTODIAL DEATH: MEANING, CHALLENGES, WAY FORWARD

Why In News?

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) reported to Parliament that 170 custodial deaths occurred across India between January 1 and March 15, 2026, with Bihar (19) and Rajasthan (18) recording the highest numbers.

What is Custodial Death?

Custodial Death refers to the death of a person while in the custody of the state, whether in a police station, a prison, or during interrogation by law enforcement agencies. 

It is considered one of the "worst crimes in a civilized society" because it occurs in a space where the individual is totally helpless and under the state's guardianship (custodia).

The Two Main Types

Police Custody Death: Occurs in a police lock-up or while the suspect is physically with the police for interrogation. Linked to "Third-Degree" torture to extract confessions or recover assets. 

Judicial Custody Death: Occurs in a Central or District Jail. Caused by overcrowding, medical negligence, poor hygiene, violence between inmates (gang wars), or suicide.

Note: According to the NCRB report, deaths in Judicial Custody are far higher than in Police Custody, largely due to illness and poor prison infrastructure, though Police Custody deaths garner more media attention due to the violence involved.

What Are the Factors Leading to Rising Custodial Deaths?

Structural & Infrastructural Deficiencies

The "Forensic Deficit": With inadequate forensic labs and a lack of training in modern investigation techniques (cyber-tracking, DNA profiling), the "Third Degree" becomes the primary tool to "crack" a case quickly.

Overburdened & Stressed Force: The police-to-population ratio in India is approximately 152.8 per lakh, far below the UN recommended 222 per lakh. (Source: Bureau of Police Research)

• Constables often work 14-hour shifts without weekly offs. This chronic fatigue and high stress manifest as aggression toward detainees.

Prison Overcrowding: While police torture grabs headlines, most deaths occur in judicial custody due to squalid conditions. Indian prisons operate at 131% occupancy, leading to the spread of diseases (TB, HIV) and inmate violence. (Source: NRCB)

Legal & Institutional Lacunae

Absence of an Anti-Torture Law: India signed the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997 but has never ratified it. India does not have a standalone Anti-Torture Law. Cases are registered under generic IPC/BNS sections (Hurt/Murder), which are easier to dilute.

The "Sanction" Shield (Section 197 CrPC / BNSS):  To prosecute a public servant, the government’s permission (sanction) is mandatory. This permission is often delayed or denied to "protect the morale of the force," effectively granting immunity to errant officers.

Flawed Inquiry Mechanisms: Under Section 176(1A) CrPC (now Section 196 BNSS), inquiries are often conducted by Executive Magistrates (who work closely with police for law and order maintenance) rather than Judicial Magistrates, leading to a conflict of interest and biased reports. 

Institutional Impunity

The greatest hurdle to justice is that the "protectors" are also the "investigators."

Policing the Police: Investigations into custodial deaths are conducted by the same police department or local colleagues of the accused. This leads to the "Blue Wall of Silence," where officers refuse to testify against each other.

Tampering with Evidence: Despite the Paramvir Singh Saini (2020) judgment, CCTVs are frequently reported as "non-functional" or "under repair" during the exact window an incident occurs. (Source: Supreme Court of India observation)

Socio-Psychological Factors

"Mai-Baap" Syndrome: The colonial legacy of the police as a force of "control" rather than "service" persists. There is a psychological sense of impunity where the uniform is seen as a license to punish.

Public Approval of "Instant Justice": Cinematic portrayals of "tough cops" who bypass the law to deliver "justice" have created a social environment where the public often tolerates or even cheers for custodial violence.

Bias Against Marginalized Sections: Custodial violence is not distributed equally. It disproportionately affects the poor, Dalits, Adivasis, and minorities who lack the legal awareness or financial power to fight back. 

What are the frameworks to address custodial death in India?

Constitutional Safeguards

Article 21: The Right to Life and Dignity. The Supreme Court has ruled that this right does not stop at the prison gates.

Article 20(3): Right against Self-Incrimination ("Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare"). No one can be compelled to be a witness against themselves—the primary motive for torture.

Article 22: Protection against arrest and detention; right to a lawyer and production before a magistrate within 24 hours. 

The New Criminal Laws (2023-24)

The transition from IPC/CrPC to BNS/BNSS has specific implications for custodial violence:

Old Law (IPC/CrPC)	New Law (BNS/BNSS)	Provision Details
IPC Sec 330/331	BNS Section 120	Penalizes voluntarily causing hurt/grievous hurt to extort a confession or compel restoration of property.
CrPC Sec 176(1A)	BNSS Section 196	Mandates a Magisterial Inquiry (in addition to police investigation) for any death, disappearance, or rape in custody.
Evidence Act	Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Sec 109)	While not a specific "torture" clause, Section 109 places the burden of proof on the person who has "special knowledge" of a fact. Courts use this to shift the burden to police officers to explain how a prisoner died in their lock-up.

Institutional Framework

NHRC/SHRC: The National Human Rights Commission mandates that every custodial death must be reported to it within 24 hours.

Police Complaints Authority (PCA): Mandated by the SC in the Prakash Singh Judgment, to investigate serious misconduct (death/rape) by police, though many states have not fully empowered them.

Judicial Intervention  

 Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa (1993)

The Supreme Court held that the State is strictly liable for the death of a person in its custody. It established that the High Courts and Supreme Court can award immediate monetary compensation to the victim's family under Article 32/226, distinct from any criminal trial.

D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal (1997)

The Supreme Court termed custodial torture a "naked violation of human dignity" and issued 11 commandments.  

Consequences of Non-Compliance => Disobedience of these guidelines constitutes contempt of court and constitutes grounds for departmental action, alongside legal liability for the damage caused.  

Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. (1994)

The Court curbed the power of arrest, stating, "No arrest can be made just because it is lawful for the police officer to do so." There must be a justification and a reasonable need (preventing escape or tampering with evidence).

Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh (2020)

The SC directed that CCTV cameras must be installed in every police station in India.

• Coverage: Entry/exit points, lock-ups, corridors, reception, and Inspector's rooms.
• Features: Must have Night Vision and Audio Recording.
• Storage: Footage must be preserved for at least 18 months (previously 45 days).

Significance: If a custodial death occurs and the CCTV is "not working," the Court can draw an adverse inference against the police.

Hansura Bai vs State of Madhya Pradesh  

The SC established a rebuttable presumption of bias if the local police investigate a custodial death involving their own staff. Key Directive:

• Mandatory Transfer: Investigations into custodial deaths where police are accused should be transferred to an independent agency (like the CBI) to uphold the principle of nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause).
• Witness Protection: The Court held the State's Home Secretary and DGP personally responsible for the safety of witnesses in such cases.

Way Forward

Legislative Reform 

Ratify UNCAT: India must ratify the UN Convention Against Torture (1997). This would legally bind the state to define torture as a distinct crime and allow for international scrutiny.

Enact the "Prevention of Torture Bill": As recommended by the Law Commission’s 273rd Report, Parliament must pass a standalone law that:

• Defines "Torture" broadly (physical and psychological).
• Prescribes stringent punishment (up to life imprisonment).
• Reverses the Burden of Proof: If a person enters custody healthy and is found injured/dead, the law must presume the police officer is guilty unless proven otherwise.

Institutional Autonomy 

Independent Investigation Agency: Following the Hansura Bai (2025) guidelines, investigations into custodial deaths must be automatically transferred to an agency independent of the local police hierarchy (e.g., a dedicated CBI wing or a functionally autonomous CID).

Police Complaints Authorities (PCA): States must fully operationalize District and State-level PCAs as mandated by the Prakash Singh (2006) judgment, ensuring they are headed by retired judges, not serving bureaucrats. 

Technology must replace the "Blue Wall of Silence"

Strict CCTV Compliance: The Supreme Court’s directive in Paramvir Singh Saini (2020) must be enforced with a "Zero Tolerance" policy. 

• Any police station reporting "malfunctioning cameras" during an incident should face an automatic departmental enquiry and adverse judicial inference.

Body-Worn Cameras: Mandatory for arresting officers to record the entire sequence of arrest and transit to the station, eliminating the "he said, she said" ambiguity.

Digitized Health Records: Medical examination reports (Section 54 CrPC/BNSS equivalent) should be digitized and uploaded to a central server immediately to prevent retrospective manipulation.

Scientific Policing 

Invest in Forensics: Scaling up of forensic labs to reduce the pendency of DNA and ballistics reports. When scientific evidence is available, the need for a "confession" (and thus torture) diminishes.

Interrogation Training: Police academies must shift focus from physical coercion to psychological interrogation techniques (like the PEACE model used in the UK) that rely on interviewing skills rather than intimidation.

Conclusion

Custodial death is not just a crime; it is a betrayal of the Constitution. As long as a citizen can be killed in the very place they are meant to be safe, the "Rule of Law" remains a hollow promise. The path forward lies in replacing the colonial stick with scientific tools, and the culture of impunity with a culture of accountability. 

Source: DECCANHERALD

PRACTICE QUESTION Q. “Custodial violence is a naked violation of human dignity and strikes a blow at the Rule of Law.” Critically Analyze. 150 Words