“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to live without fear of the State’s hand in the shadows. Until custodial torture ends, India’s promise of justice remains incomplete.”
The Constitutional Crisis
The latest Sivaganga custodial death case in Tamil Nadu in July 2025 demonstrates a troubling tendency that undercuts India’s constitutional guarantee. Custodial death is defined as the death of a person in police or court custody, which is a fundamental violation of constitutional protections of dignity, equality, and life.
It reflects structural unfairness, reinforcing established caste, class, and power imbalances, and puts our democratic maturity to the test. When the state, entrusted with defending civilians, becomes the perpetrator of violence, it undermines constitutional democracy.
Global Standing: India’s Troubling Position
The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) has placed India as “high risk” in its Global Torture Index 2025. Most crucially, despite signing the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997, India has yet to ratify it. This reticence is unusual for the world’s largest democracy.
UNCAT has been ratified by neighbouring nations such as Sri Lanka (1994), Nepal (1991), Bangladesh (1998), Afghanistan (1987), Bhutan (2015), and the Maldives (2004), but India, along with Pakistan and Myanmar, has not.
The Stark Reality: Data That Demands Action
The data paint a horrible picture of systematic failure.
In 2024, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) reported 2,739 custody deaths, a significant increase from 2,400 incidents in 2023. Between 2017 and 2022, India documented 11,656 custody fatalities, but not one police officer was convicted.
While 345 magisterial enquiries were ordered and 123 police officers arrested, with 79 charged, zero convictions were reported.
The targeting of marginalized communities is particularly egregious. In 2022, 38.5% of detenues ain Tamil Nadu were Scheduled Castes, despite comprising only 20% of the state’s population.
Between 2017 and 2022, only 74 cases of human rights violations were filed against police in India. Of these, only 41 personnel were charged, and just 3 were convicted, highlighting systemic impunity.
Legal Framework: Promise Without Delivery
India’s legal landscape presents a paradox of comprehensive guidelines with poor implementation. While the judiciary has consistently laid down safeguards and mandated institutional mechanisms to prevent abuse, the gap between law and implementation continues to impede progress.
The 2023 criminal law reforms marked a significant step forward. Section 120 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita punishes intentional infliction of hurt to extract confessions. Section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita mandates lawful, documented arrests. Section 22 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam renders inadmissible confessions obtained through coercion.
Yet incidents like the Ajith Kumar case continue, with the Madurai Bench observing that “even a murderer would not have caused this much injury.”
Landmark Cases: Judicial Intervention Against Custodial Violence
-
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1996):
Comprehensive criteria were created by this landmark ruling to stop violence against inmates. The right to legal representation, detainee medical examinations, and arrest memoranda were all ordered by the Supreme Court. While it did bring about some improvement, many instances remained unreported due to a lack of knowledge, particularly in rural regions. By implementing procedural protections, the recommendations were the first organized judicial endeavor to combat torture in detention.
-
Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006):
The Court ordered the creation of district and state-level Police Complaints Authorities, which would be led by retired judges. These powers were intended to handle grievances against police misbehavior and guarantee responsibility. Its importance in establishing oversight mechanisms notwithstanding, implementation has been inconsistent among governments. The ruling made clear that impartial organizations are required to keep an eye on police conduct and look into complaints.
-
Parimvir Singh v. Baljit Singh:
This ruling mandated round-the-clock CCTV monitoring in all sections of police stations and detention facilities. Through technical involvement, the Supreme Court sought to increase openness and discourage torture in detention. The action signaled a change toward the use of contemporary technology as a means of guaranteeing accountability. However, practical issues include non-functional systems and strange loss of vital footage during critical occurrences.
-
State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav:
The Court ruled that the police bear the burden of proof in situations involving violence against inmates. This foundational idea highlighted the judiciary’s function in protecting individual liberties from the authority of the state. The ruling acknowledged that because of the disparity in power between the state and the person, incidents involving custodial violence need particular consideration. It reaffirmed the state’s constitutional duty to safeguard people under its control.
-
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017):
This privacy ruling upheld physical autonomy and dignity as essential elements of basic rights. The Supreme Court acknowledged that protection from torture and governmental violence is a part of privacy. The ruling reinforced the constitutional basis for safeguarding people from abuse in custody. It offered a more comprehensive foundation for human rights that includes privacy rights that include protection against torture.
-
Nambi Narayan v. Siby Mathews and Others (2018):
The extreme psychological suffering brought on by torture and unfair prosecution was acknowledged by the Supreme Court. Beyond the physical injury, this ruling brought attention to the human cost of custodial brutality. It recognized that victims and their family suffer from the long-lasting psychological damage caused by torture for years. The case highlighted the necessity of providing victims of torture with restitution and rehabilitation.
Institutional Failures: Why the System Doesn’t Work
Current mechanisms lack effectiveness: Police Complaints Authorities remain under-resourced, magisterial inquiries are perfunctory, medical examinations fail to document torture properly, and CCTV systems are either non-functional or footage disappears during critical incidents. Thus there is a very strong urge for implementation.
Global Best Practices: Learning from Success Stories
Countries with effective custodial death prevention demonstrate clear patterns. Examples include:
- Nordic countries (e.g., Norway) — focus on rehabilitation over punishment, with comprehensive legal frameworks forbidding torture. Their approach emphasizes independent monitoring bodies, regular professional development, and mandatory medical examinations.
- United Kingdom — uses the PEACE Model, which includes rapport-based questioning, no pressure, and video-recorded interviews.
- Australia and New Zealand — require video filming of all interrogations to ensure transparency and accountability.
The Path Forward: Comprehensive Reform Framework
Legislative Foundation
India desperately requires a Prevention of Torture Act that criminalises all forms of custodial torture and imposes obligatory penalties. This legislation must define torture broadly, including physical, psychological, and sexual abuse.
The Act should impose strong liability on top officials who fail to avoid torture, extending from individual to institutional responsibility. Furthermore, India demands a Custodial Accountability Framework Act, similar to those used in Nordic nations with strong custodial accountability, which makes custodial deaths non-bailable offences with a presumption against accused officers and provides time-bound trials within 18 months.
Institutional Transformation
The concept calls for Independent Custodial Investigation Agencies at the state level, staffed by human rights attorneys and retired judges, with true prosecution authority, and free from police interference. These organisations must have the authority to suspend people right away, search and seize people, and protect witnesses.
A significant step towards openness is represented by real-time monitoring made possible by required CCTV coverage in all police stations, with the ability to transmit live to district monitoring centres.
Procedural Safeguards and Cultural Change
Digital arrest memos with GPS timestamps and the requirement that impartial observers be present throughout interrogations are necessary for the improved application of DK Basu guidelines. Law enforcement must undergo a fundamental culture shift in addition to structural improvements.
This can be achieved through reward systems for zero custodial violence records, psychological evaluation programs for officers, and required yearly human rights training.
Implementation Strategy and Success Metrics
A phased approach with concrete targets:
- Emergency measures (within 6 months): CCTV installation and officer suspensions.
- Legislative reforms (within 18 months): passage of the Prevention of Torture Act.
- Full implementation (within 36 months): complete technology integration and institutional changes.
Success criteria include:
- 90% reduction in custody mortality within three years,
- 100% prosecution rates, and
- 80% conviction rates in fast-track courts.
Annual parliamentary reviews and quarterly NHRC assessments guarantee continuing accountability.
Conclusion: A Democratic Imperative
India’s custodial mortality epidemic is more than just a law enforcement concern; it threatens the country’s constitutional democracy and human rights duties. With over 2,700 recorded deaths in 2024 and India’s worldwide status as a “high risk” country, significant reform is required rather than optional.
The architecture outlined here requires significant political will, a suitable budget, and an ongoing commitment to implementation at all levels of government. However, the cost of maintaining the status quo—calculated in terms of lost lives, injury to India’s international position, and erosion of constitutional legitimacy—far outweighs the investment required for revolutionary reform.
The treatment of the most vulnerable detainees is a key test of India’s commitment to human dignity and constitutional ideals as it seeks global leadership.
Success will require institutional coordination, continuous political leadership, and vigorous civil society participation. Most importantly, it demands recognition that each life lost while in custody is more than just a statistic, but a violation of the state’s fundamental duty to protect those under its jurisdiction. Only drastic, all-encompassing reform can end custodial executions and restore public trust in India’s justice system, and the time for revolutionary change has arrived.
