Custodial Deaths in India

The Spectre of Custodial Deaths: A Persistent Stain on Indian Democracy

On September 22, the Supreme Court reprimanded the Madhya Pradesh government and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for their failure to arrest two police officials accused in the custodial death of a 25-year-old detainee. This incident underscores a chronic issue that India has struggled to address: between 2016 and 2022, 11,650 custodial deaths were reported nationwide, according to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Uttar Pradesh alone recorded 2,630 such deaths in this period, the most in the country. For a constitutional democracy that enshrines the right to life under Article 21, this data reveals a troubling erosion of principles.

The Policy Debate: Police Impunity vs Accountability

The contentious issue is whether India’s current legal and procedural safeguards adequately curb custodial violence, or if systemic flaws perpetuate police impunity. Advocates for reform point to mechanisms like Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (mandating judicial inquiries into custodial deaths) and the guidelines laid out in D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal, 1997. Critics, however, cite stark gaps between legal intent and ground-level enforcement. For instance, of the 1,650 custodial deaths reported between 2016 and 2022, magisterial inquiries were ordered in only 345 cases, resulting in a paltry 123 arrests.

Compounding this bleak scenario is the concentration of victims among marginalized groups. NHRC data spanning two decades reveals that 71% of custodial deaths involved individuals from vulnerable socio-economic backgrounds, making them statistically and systematically more susceptible to the failure of accountability mechanisms.

The Case for Stricter Enforcement: Legal Safeguards Exist

Those defending India’s existing legal and institutional framework argue that substantive safeguards are already in place. The celebratory example often cited is the judicial activism behind custodial surveillance, including the Supreme Court’s directive in Paramvir Singh Saini (2020), which mandated the installation of CCTV cameras with night vision and audio in all police stations and lockups. Additionally, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has introduced transparency measures in arrests and emphasized forensic methods over confession-driven investigations.

Efforts to integrate technology into policing also reflect progress. Automated monitoring of custodial proceedings through body cameras and digital interrogation records would ostensibly reduce physical coercion and improve evidence-based investigations. Moreover, such reforms align with international standards like the Nelson Mandela Rules, which govern humane treatment of detainees.

A silver lining exists in judicial intervention—high-profile cases routinely propel compensation and institutional accountability, albeit in isolated contexts. For example, courts have directed compensatory payments to victims’ families and ordered independent inquiries, actions that have prevented wholesale collapse of the justice system’s legitimacy.

The Case Against: Structural Failures and Entrenched Bias

Despite these safeguards, systemic implementation deficits diminish their efficacy. Protections under Article 21 and Article 22—provisos on arbitrary arrests—often remain theoretical. Institutional inertia compounds the problem: investigations into custodial violence are still carried out by the same department involved in the incident, an evident conflict of interest. This pattern is mirrored in the lack of adherence to judicial directives like mandatory medical examination of detainees or immediate notification of relatives upon arrest.

Critics further highlight the enduring impact of colonial-era policing cultures. The Police Act of 1861, designed to instill obedience rather than enable service, encourages an authoritarian approach to investigation. The over-reliance on confession-based policing, frequently secured through third-degree methods, is emblematic of poor forensic infrastructure and inadequate training. With India posting one of the highest rates of custodial violence globally, these root-cause issues are impossible to ignore.

Even ostensibly progressive interventions like BNSS, 2023 may prove limited. Without institutional capacity for enforcement, technology mandates for CCTV cameras and fast-track courts remain aspirational rather than functional. Uttar Pradesh’s staggering numbers—2,630 deaths compared to just few arrests—demonstrate how entrenched impunity can render legal mechanisms redundant.

Lessons from the UK: Institutional Independence as a Gamechanger

Countries like the United Kingdom offer a comparably robust framework for dealing with custodial deaths. The UK's Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) oversees investigations into deaths linked to police custody. Functioning independently of the police chain of command, the IOPC ensures factual, impartial inquiries. According to a 2022 review, 94% of custodial complaints were resolved within 12 months, a far cry from the bureaucratic delays witnessed in India.

The UK’s emphasis on forensic and psychological expertise also sets a precedent. Investigations prioritize evidence over confessions, supported by advanced forensic labs and interdisciplinary teams. India’s lack of such structural independence in its investigative mechanisms significantly hampers accountability.

The Way Forward: Balancing Risk and Reform

The evidence is mixed, and an honest assessment must acknowledge this. India’s reform trajectory is nominally promising—the BNSS, 2023 and judicial directives display thoughtful effort—but enforcement gaps render many initiatives ineffective. Institutional independence, as exemplified by the UK's IOPC model, could fundamentally alter accountability structures if adopted.

Ultimately, the problem is not merely legal—it is socio-political. Police impunity thrives in an environment of weak oversight and socio-economic marginalization. The risk lies not only in continued custodial deaths but also in the erosion of democratic principles, rendering constitutional safeguards meaningless for the weakest.

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions