Custodial Death in India: Can Judicial Safeguards Ensure Accountability?

Background and Context

• Custodial deaths continue to occur in India despite constitutional guarantees and repeated judicial interventions.
• The policing system retains elements of colonial-era practices that rely on coercion rather than rights-based investigation.
• Oversight bodies like NHRC exist, but enforcement remains weak due to structural constraints.
• The absence of a dedicated anti-torture law further weakens accountability. As a result, custodial violence reflects systemic governance failure rather than isolated incidents.

Concept of Custodial Death

Custodial death refers to the death of an individual while under police or judicial custody due to torture, excessive force, or negligence.

Police custody deaths usually occur during interrogation, whereas judicial custody deaths occur in prisons due to poor conditions or violence. Such incidents represent a direct violation of fundamental rights and indicate misuse of state authority. They undermine the basic principle that the state must protect, not harm, individuals under its control.

Types of Custodial Death

There are two types of Custodial death:

Police Custody Death:

 Death occurs when a person is held by the police during interrogation or investigation in a police station or lock-up.

Judicial Custody Death

 Death occurs when a person is kept in jail or prison under the orders of a court.

Constitutional Framework (Article 21)

• Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
• Over time, the Supreme Court has expanded its scope to include the right to live with dignity, protection against torture, and humane treatment in custody.
• In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, the Court held that procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable, thereby expanding Article 21 into a substantive due process guarantee.
• In Nilabati Behera vs State of Odisha, the Court established state liability to compensate victims of custodial death, recognizing it as a violation of fundamental rights.
• In Joginder Kumar vs State of UP, the Court emphasized that arrest must not be arbitrary and must follow procedural safeguards.
• These rulings collectively establish that custodial violence is a direct violation of the right to life and dignity.

Data and Trends

• India recorded around 170 custodial deaths in 2025–26, reflecting the persistence of the problem.
• Over the last five years, figures have remained consistently high, indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• Certain states such as Bihar and Rajasthan show higher incidence, pointing to governance disparities.
• Despite this, accountability remains minimal, with very few cases resulting in punishment or disciplinary action.

Core Issues Involved

• The persistence of custodial deaths is linked to structural weaknesses in policing.
• There is a heavy reliance on coercive interrogation methods due to lack of forensic infrastructure.
• Institutional culture often protects erring officials, creating a culture of impunity.
• Legal gaps, including the absence of a specific anti-torture law and non-ratification of UNCAT, weaken accountability.
• Procedural barriers such as prior sanction for prosecution further delay justice.

Judicial Safeguards

The Supreme Court has laid down several safeguards to prevent custodial violence.

• In K. Basu vs State of West Bengal, guidelines for arrest and detention were established, including mandatory medical checks and informing relatives.
• In Prakash Singh vs Union of India, reforms such as Police Complaints Authorities were mandated to ensure accountability.
• In Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh, installation of CCTV cameras in police stations was made mandatory.

However, weak implementation continues to limit their effectiveness.

Implications

• Custodial deaths undermine the rule of law by eroding public trust in law enforcement agencies.
• They disproportionately affect marginalized communities, reinforcing social inequalities.
• Such incidents also damage India’s human rights reputation at the global level.
• Moreover, they weaken the criminal justice system by promoting coercive methods over due process.

Challenges / Criticisms

• Implementation gaps remain a major concern, as safeguards are often not effectively enforced.
• Legal provisions such as prior sanction for prosecution delay accountability.
• Investigations are frequently prolonged, leading to loss of evidence.
• Lack of independent oversight allows institutional bias to persist.
• Additionally, prison overcrowding contributes to deaths in judicial custody.

Way Forward

India should enact a comprehensive anti-torture law and ratify UNCAT to strengthen the legal framework. Investigations must shift toward forensic and evidence-based methods. Independent agencies should handle custodial death cases to ensure impartiality. Strict enforcement of accountability mechanisms, including CCTV compliance, is essential. Police reforms focusing on training, human rights awareness, and institutional restructuring are necessary for long-term change.

Conclusion

The Sattankulam verdict reflects a strong judicial response to custodial violence, but systemic reform remains essential. Protecting Article 21 requires not only punishment of offenders but transformation of policing practices. A rights-based approach to law enforcement is crucial to uphold constitutional values and public trust.