Understanding Custodial Violence in India Introduction 

• Custodial violence continues to be a significant concern in many countries, including India
•  It refers to the abuse or mistreatment of individuals by law enforcement officers while they are under police or judicial custody. The abuse, often in the form of physical, psychological, or sexual violence, violates fundamental human rights and remains a pressing issue despite several legal provisions in place. 
• The global attention to recent extradition cases, like the Sanjay Bhandari extradition in the UK and Tahawwur Rana’s appeal in the US, highlights the continued implications of India’s struggle to address custodial violence. 

• Custodial violence occurs when individuals detained by law enforcement authorities face inhumane treatment. This abuse takes many forms and is often used as a tactic to extract confessions, intimidate detainees, or punish individuals for minor or alleged offenses. 
• Such violence not only inflicts physical harm but also undermines the detainee’s dignity, leading to long-term psychological and emotional consequences.
• Custodial violence remains a persistent problem in many countries, particularly in prisons, police stations, or judicial lockups. In countries like India, where overcrowding and poor conditions in prisons are rampant, the incidence of custodial violence is disturbingly high.

What are the Types of Custodial Violence? 

• Physical Custodial Violence: This type of abuse involves the use of excessive physical force against detainees. Police officers may use beatings, electric shocks, or other forms of physical injury to extract confessions or intimidate individuals. Overcrowding in Indian prisons, which affects over 4.3 million detainees as per 2020 data, exacerbates instances of physical abuse due to lack of oversight and resources.
• Psychological Custodial Violence: Psychological or mental torture often involves prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, denial of basic necessities, and threats of violence. This form of torture can be just as damaging as physical abuse, leading to long-term psychological scars such as anxiety, depression, and trauma. The Amnesty International report of 2019 highlighted the use of prolonged solitary confinement and forced confessions frequently in Indian police stations, particularly in relation to detainees in police custody. The report specifically pointed out the widespread nature of such practices in various states, with Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Tamil Nadu being cited as examples where these tactics were most commonly used. 
• Sexual Custodial Violence: Sexual violence in custody, including rape, sodomy, and other forms of sexual assault, is one of the most extreme forms of custodial abuse. Women and marginalized communities, particularly Dalits, are especially vulnerable to sexual violence in police stations and prisons. Due to social stigma and fear of retaliation, many victims of sexual violence in custody do not report their abuse. Human Rights Watch’s 2016 report titled “Double Victimization: Rape and Sexual Abuse in India’s Police Lock-ups” found that women prisoners in India are highly vulnerable to sexual violence, with over 50% of women who experience custodial abuse coming from Dalit or Adivasi communities. 

Legal Provisions Available Against Custodial Violence

• Legal Provisions:
  • Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 330 (voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession) and 348 (wrongful confinement to extort confession) specifically deal with custodial violence and criminalize torture and abuse by authorities.
  • Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Section 176 mandates a judicial inquiry into custodial deaths, ensuring transparency and accountability in cases of abuse or death in police custody.
  • Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 – Established the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions (SHRC), both of which are tasked with investigating custodial violence and human rights abuses.
  • BNS Provisions – Sections like 176 (causing hurt by public servant) and 177 (wrongful confinement by public servant) ensure that public servants involved in wrongful restraint or custodial abuse are held accountable for their actions.
• Constitutional Safeguards:
  • Article 21 – Guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, which encompasses protection from torture and inhuman treatment. The Supreme Court of India has ruled multiple times that torture, whether physical or psychological, violates this provision.
  • Article 20(3) – Protects individuals from self-incrimination, ensuring that detainees cannot be compelled to testify against themselves. This prevents law enforcement from using coercive methods like torture to extract confessions.
  • Article 39A – Ensures free legal aid for individuals who cannot afford legal representation. This law is crucial in ensuring fair trials and protecting individuals from abusive treatment during custody.
  • Article 22 – Provides protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, mandates the right to be informed of the reasons for arrest, and allows access to legal counsel.

Causes of Custodial Violence

• Impact of Understaffing and Overcrowding: Understaffing and overcrowding in police stations and prisons exacerbate the problem of custodial violence. The 2019 Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR) notes that nearly 80% of police officers work shifts longer than 8 hours, leading to stress and burnout. The lack of resources and proper training further compounds the issue, making it difficult to address human rights abuses effectively.
• Cultural Attitudes and Caste Discrimination: Cultural attitudes toward violence, social inequalities, and the normalization of brutality contribute significantly to custodial violence. In particular, caste-based discrimination often results in disproportionately higher rates of abuse among lower-caste individuals in prisons and police custody. According to National Dalit Movement for Justice (NDMJ), over 70% of women victims of custodial sexual violence belong to marginalized Dalit and Adivasi communities. Also, a report by the Indian Penal Reform League indicated that Dalit prisoners in Indian jails experience significantly higher levels of physical abuse, including beatings, forced labor, and verbal abuse, than their upper-caste counterparts.
• The Risk of Custodial Abuse: Gaps in legal procedures, such as arbitrary arrests, inadequate documentation of detainees, and limited access to legal aid, increase the risk of custodial violence. Research by Amnesty International found that 55% of detainees in India do not have access to legal representation during their detention, which leaves them more vulnerable to abuse.
• Barriers to Justice: One of the primary reasons custodial violence continues is the lack of accountability for law enforcement officers. There is often a reluctance to prosecute officers involved in custodial abuse, leading to a culture of impunity. According to NHRC data, only a fraction of complaints regarding custodial deaths or torture lead to prosecution or disciplinary action. It reports that 90% of custodial abuse cases go unresolved due to weak implementation of existing laws and the lack of prosecutorial power within oversight bodies.
• Work Pressure and Stress: Law enforcement officers, often working long hours under stressful conditions, may resort to violence as a coping mechanism or due to lack of proper training. The Indian Police Service (IPS) reports that over 60% of police officers suffer from work-related stress, leading to potential abusive behaviors in custody.
• Critical Legal Gap: Despite signing the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997, India has failed to enact a specific anti-torture law. This legal gap allows custodial violence to continue with minimal consequences for those responsible for such abuses.
• Reinforcement of Brutal Practices: The continued use of third-degree torture methods in police stations and prisons, often to extract confessions, is seen as a means to quickly resolve cases. This practice continues despite being illegal under Indian law, as it is frequently not documented or reported.

Consequences of Custodial Violence

• Erosion of the Rule of Law: When law enforcement officers engage in custodial violence with impunity, it undermines the very principles of justice, transparency, and accountability. 

• The failure of constitutional safeguards, particularly Articles 21 and 22, perpetuates a culture where police impunity thrives. 
• According to Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative( CHRI), 40% of complaints against police brutality go unaddressed, mainly due to the absence of effective accountability mechanisms .Marginalized communities, particularly those from low-income backgrounds and minority groups, often refrain from reporting abuses due to fear of retaliation or further harassment.

• Legal and Institutional Flaws: The legal and institutional frameworks designed to prevent custodial violence often fall short due to judicial delays, weak enforcement, and ineffective oversight. The NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) often faces criticism for its limited powers, as it can only recommend actions but cannot enforce them. The Law Commission’s recommendations for stronger anti-torture laws have yet to be acted upon, and the absence of a comprehensive anti-torture law remains a significant gap.

• Deep Social and Psychological Impact: The damage caused by custodial violence is not limited to the victim alone. Families often bear a heavy social and psychological burden, especially when the victim is subjected to long-term physical or psychological abuse. Custodial violence contributes to public distrust in law enforcement and erodes social cohesion. The Thoothukudi custodial deaths sparked protests that were a public outcry against the systematic abuse and corruption within the police force.
• Severe Economic Burden: The financial strain caused by custodial violence affects both victims and the state. Victims often face hefty medical bills and long-term rehabilitation costs. Families may lose their breadwinners or incur financial hardship due to the time spent pursuing legal justice. On a broader scale, the state is required to compensate victims, as seen in the Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa case, which set a precedent for state compensation to custodial torture victims.
• Human Rights Violations: Custodial violence is one of the most egregious violations of human rights, resulting in both physical and psychological trauma. Victims often suffer from severe physical injuries such as bruises, fractures, and sometimes even death, as well as long-lasting mental health issues like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. In 2020, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) recorded 1,500+ custodial deaths across India, a stark reminder of the gravity of this issue.

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes protection against torture and inhumane treatment.

• In the landmark case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court of India laid down guidelines to prevent custodial violence and ensure the protection of fundamental rights, especially during arrest and detention.   

• Dented International Reputation: India’s international standing suffers due to its failure to address custodial violence, especially when it comes to global human rights commitments. The country’s reluctance to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) reflects a failure to meet global human rights standards. International concerns over custodial abuse and human rights violations have led to denial of extradition requests, such as in the Sanjay Bhandari case, where the UK cited fears of custodial torture in India.

Challenges in Addressing Custodial Violence in India

• Legal and Institutional Shortcomings: One of the most pressing obstacles to tackling custodial violence is the lack of a dedicated anti-torture law in India. Despite clear recommendations from the Law Commission of India (2017) and the Rajya Sabha Select Committee (2010), India has yet to pass a comprehensive law criminalizing custodial torture. The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) do provide some legal recourse, but these laws are often insufficient and not enforced effectively. Furthermore, the judiciary is often slow to address custodial violence cases, and judicial delays exacerbate the problem. Cases of custodial torture drag on for years, preventing timely justice and creating an environment where abuse continues unabated.

• Police Impunity and Lack of Accountability: A culture of impunity within India’s police forces continues to perpetuate custodial violence. Officers who engage in abusive practices are rarely held accountable, thanks to the lack of transparency, lack of independent investigations, and resistance to reform within law enforcement agencies The lack of independent oversight mechanisms ensures that police officers continue to act with impunity, confident that they will not face consequences for their actions.

• A report from Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2019 found that 70% of complaints against police brutality are not investigated thoroughly, with many perpetrators not facing disciplinary action due to the protection provided by the system.

• Political and Administrative Obstacles: The lack of political will to implement necessary reforms remains a significant obstacle to addressing custodial violence in India. Political interference in cases involving police misconduct prevents genuine efforts to hold law enforcement accountable. The reluctance of political parties to take strong action against the police is primarily due to electoral considerations, as they are often dependent on police forces for maintaining order and support during elections.

• Societal and Cultural Factors: Public apathy towards custodial violence, along with a normalized view of police brutality, makes it difficult to spark societal change. Victims of custodial violence are often stigmatized, and communities rarely challenge law enforcement, even in cases of clear abuse. Caste-based discrimination further exacerbates the vulnerability of marginalized communities, particularly Dalits and other backward classes, to custodial violence. The social acceptance of police brutality, especially against marginalized groups, prevents public outrage and weakens calls for reform.

• Economic and Resource Limitations: India’s strained resources hinder the necessary police reforms, both in terms of funding and personnel. Police departments face understaffing and lack the necessary infrastructure to effectively monitor and enforce human rights standards. The absence of adequate training for officers on human rights issues, as well as the lack of compensation mechanisms for victims, contributes to the continuation of custodial violence. The lack of funds for state-level human rights commissions and oversight bodies further undermines the enforcement of legal protections.

• The 2018 Status of Policing in India Report revealed that over 90% of police stations in India suffer from understaffing, which impacts their ability to respond to human rights violations and effectively oversee police conduct.

• International and Diplomatic Ramifications: India’s failure to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and its ongoing record of custodial violence have significant diplomatic consequences. This damages India’s credibility as a global defender of human rights and undermines its position in international human rights forums.

What Should Be the Way Forward?

• Independent Oversight Mechanisms: Establishing independent oversight bodies, as recommended by the Justice J.S. Verma Committee, is crucial to ensuring accountability. These bodies should have the power to investigate and prosecute custodial violence cases directly, without political interference.
• Police Reforms for Transparency and Accountability: Full implementation of the Prakash Singh (2006) police reforms, which advocate separating law enforcement from political influence, will enhance professionalism and reduce the abuse of power. The Model Police Act (2006) should be uniformly enforced across states to ensure accountability.
• Mandatory CCTV Surveillance and Audio-Video Interrogation: Expanding the Supreme Court’s directive on CCTV surveillance in police stations and ensuring real-time monitoring will deter custodial abuse. Video recordings of interrogations should be mandatory, allowing for third-party audits to ensure transparency.
• Fast-Track Courts and Compensation Mechanisms: Fast-track courts should be established to expedite custodial violence cases. The NHRC’s recommendation for a uniform compensation scheme should be institutionalized, with a clear allocation mechanism to support victims.
• Ratification of International Conventions: India must ratify the UNCAT and adopt best practices from countries with effective oversight, such as the UK’s Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and Norway’s Ombudsman Model, to hold law enforcement officers accountable and ensure that human rights are upheld.
• Enactment of a Standalone Anti-Torture Law: India must urgently pass the Prevention of Torture Bill, criminalizing custodial torture and prescribing strict penalties for offenders. The law should also mandate mandatory compensation for victims, aligning with international standards set by the UNCAT.
• Strengthening Judicial Oversight: Custodial death and torture cases should be investigated by Judicial Magistrates, ensuring impartiality and fairness in the investigation process. Courts must enforce compliance with the D.K. Basu guidelines and impose harsher penalties for violations.