Answer

Introduction

Custodial violence in India underscores systemic failures, caste biases, and weak enforcement of constitutional rights. In 2021–22, the National Human Rights Commission reported 2,300 custodial deaths in India. Despite the D.K. Basu guidelines, accountability remains elusive, eroding public trust in law enforcement and judicial credibility. 

Body

Factors Responsible for Growing Custodial Violence in India

• Institutionalised Impunity: Lack of independent investigations leads to biased probes by police themselves.
  Eg: According to the NCRB’s annual Crime in India (CII) reports, there were 1,888 custodial deaths, yet only 26 police personnel were convicted between 2001 and 2020.
• Judicial Delays & Weak Prosecution: Slow trials embolden perpetrators, reducing deterrence.
  Eg: The Vincent custodial death case (Tuticorin, 1999) took 25 years to reach conviction.
• Socio-Caste Hierarchies: Marginalised communities are often disproportionately targeted due to caste and class biases.
  Eg: NHRC data reveals that 71 percent of custodial deaths between 1996 and 2018 involved detainees from poor or vulnerable backgrounds.
• Torture as Investigative Tool: Reliance on third-degree methods due to poor training and pressure for quick results.
  Eg: In the recent Chhattisgarh custodial death case (2025), the postmortem revealed 26 injuries on the victim, exposing the brutal use of torture to extract compliance.
• Weak Oversight Mechanisms: Human Rights Commissions lack enforcement powers and its recommendations are often ignored.

Implications of Judicial Observations Normalising Custodial Violence

• Normalising State Brutality: By framing violence as “tool for discipline”, courts blur the line between law enforcement and extra-legal punishment.
  Eg: Chhattisgarh HC (2025) calling custodial assault “teaching a lesson” normalises brutality and dilutes constitutional safeguards.
• Erosion of Rule of Law: Judicial leniency signals that state violence is tolerable undermining Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity).
• Undermining Victims’ Rights: Judicial tolerance of brutality denies marginalized communities meaningful access to justice and perpetuates systemic discrimination.
• Weakening Public Trust: Endorsing or ignoring state violence erodes confidence in legal institutions.
• Distortion of Constitutional Morality: Treats dignity and due process as optional, not inviolable rights.

To restore public confidence and constitutional values, robust reforms must replace judicial and institutional complacency.

Reforms to Strengthen Safeguards & Uphold Rule of Law

• Independent Investigative Bodies: Establish state-level custodial death investigation units outside police hierarchy.
• Strict Judicial Accountability: Mandate higher courts to monitor custodial violence cases regularly.
  Eg: In D.K. Basu case(1997), SC mandated protections such as visible nameplates on police personnel, family intimation of arrest and medical examinations every 48 hours.
• Strengthen SC/ST Act Enforcement: Apply presumptive caste-bias provision in all caste-affected custodial deaths.
• Mandatory Technology Integration: Provision of CCTV’s  and bodycams in all lockups with real-time monitoring by magistrates.
• Enact Anti-Torture Law: India signed the UN Convention Against Torture in 1997 but has not ratified it. A robust domestic law is essential to criminalise custodial torture and uphold human rights.
• Implement Police Reforms: Full implementation of Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006) directives, including police sensitisation, accountability, and insulation from political interference.

Conclusion

Custodial violence remains a systemic challenge undermining dignity, rule of law, and constitutional morality. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer has rightly termed it as the “worst crime in civilised society,” demanding robust reforms, independent accountability, and strict judicial oversight to protect the vulnerable.

DOWNLOAD PDF