Custodial Violence in India: Legal Safeguards, Systemic Failures, and the Sathankulam Case Verdict

Recently, the Madurai Sessions Court sentenced nine policemen to death for the custodial torture deaths of trader P. Jayaraj and his son J. Benicks in the Sattankulam police station (Tamil Nadu) in 2020.

Background- The Sathankulam Incident (June 2020)

• The Incident: During the COVID-19 lockdown in June 2020, a father and son, who ran a mobile shop in  Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu, were arrested for allegedly keeping their store open slightly past the permitted hour.
• The Custodial Torture: While in police custody, they were subjected to extreme physical brutality that resulted in severe internal injuries
• Outcome: Both victims died in the hospital due to the injuries sustained during torture
  • To cover their tracks, the police destroyed evidence and filed false charges to justify their prolonged detention.

Best Online Coaching for UPSC

Judicial Verdict in Sathankulam Custodial Death Case (2026)

• Death Verdict: In April 2026, a Sessions Court in Madurai delivered a judgment in the Sathankulam custodial death case, sentencing nine police personnel to death. 
• Legal Basis: The court convicted them of double murder, criminal conspiracy, and destruction of evidence
• Rarest of Rare Doctrine: Citing the Bachchan Singh case (1980), the court classified this as a “rarest of rare” case because the “protectors became predators,” representing an extreme misuse of power.
• Constitutional Significance: The verdict is seen as a protection of Article 21 (Right to Life with Dignity), signifying that no one, even those in uniform, is above the law.

About Custodial Violence and National Data

• Custodial violence: It is a grave human rights concern in India, encompassing physical, psychological, and sexual torture while an individual is in police or judicial custody.
• NCRB Data (2018–2022): Statistics reveal that there were over 100 custodial deaths during this period.
• Conviction Rate: Despite the high number of deaths, the conviction rate remains almost zero, highlighting a major gap in accountability.

Root Causes of Custodial Violence

• Colonial Legacy of Policing: India’s policing structure remains rooted in the Indian Police Act, 1861, originally designed to control subjects rather than serve citizens, and this colonial mindset continues to influence present policing practices.
• Pressure for Quick Results: Societal, media, and political pressure for fast case resolutions leads police to take shortcuts, such as extracting confessions through torture instead of using scientific investigation.
• Sense of Absolute Power: Some officers believe they are the “judge and executioner,” operating with a sense of impunity.
• Police Solidarity: A brotherhood mentality exists where officers protect each other and refuse to testify against colleagues. (Notably, in the Sathankulam case, a female constable broke this cycle by testifying).
• Lack of Skills/Infrastructure: Police often lack the training and tools required for scientific investigations (e.g., DNA profiling, forensics).

Click to Know UPSC OnlyIAS Coaching Centres

Institutional Failures

• Medical Complicity: Doctors declared the victims “fit for remand” despite severe injuries, even though their clothes had to be changed multiple times due to bleeding, indicating a failure of medical duty and ethical responsibility.
• Magisterial Passivity: As per the D.K. Basu guidelines, magistrates must examine the accused for injuries before granting remand.
  • However, in this case, the magistrate granted a mechanical remand without inspecting the victims.
• Police Self-Investigation: The police initially suppressed the FIR and intimidated witnesses to shield their own personnel.
  • The case came to light following a CBI investigation ordered by the Madras High Court through a suo motu intervention.

Legal Framework and Non-Compliance

• D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal: Mandates safeguards such as arrest memos, informing relatives of the arrested person, and mandatory medical examination of detainees to prevent custodial abuse.
• Prakash Singh vs. Union of India: Directed the establishment of Police Complaints Authorities at the state and district levels to address police misconduct.
  • However, many states have not fully implemented this directive.
• Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh: Made the installation of CCTV cameras with audio recording mandatory in all police stations, lock-ups, and interrogation rooms to enhance accountability.
• International Status: India has signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture but has not ratified it, and the country still lacks a standalone domestic anti-torture law. 

Way Forward

• Legislative Action: Enact a standalone Anti-Torture law and ratify the United Nations Convention Against Torture to provide a clear legal framework for preventing and punishing custodial torture.
• Institutional Reform: Ensure independent investigation and prosecution of custodial violence cases and operationalise Police Complaints Authorities at state and district levels as directed in the Prakash Singh vs. Union of India.
• Technological Integration: Fully implement CCTV cameras with audio recording in police stations and lock-ups as mandated in Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh and strengthen capacity in scientific investigation methods such as DNA profiling and cyber forensics.
• Cultural Shift: Promote human rights education and constitutional morality within the police force to move away from the colonial policing mindset and ensure citizen-centric law enforcement.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Conclusion

Preventing custodial violence requires strict enforcement of safeguards, institutional accountability, and a policing culture anchored in constitutional values and human rights.

DOWNLOAD PDF