INTRODUCTION
In India, the police are expected to protect citizens and maintain public order. They are given wide powers such as arresting individuals, keeping them in custody, and conducting investigations. These powers are necessary for enforcing the law, but they also come with serious responsibility. When a person dies while in police or judicial custody, it raises disturbing questions about how these powers are being used. Custodial deaths show a painful contrast between constitutional ideals and reality.[1] Although the Constitution promises protection of life and liberty, repeated incidents of custodial deaths suggest that these guarantees are not always respected. This situation forces us to ask a difficult but necessary question—when the law enforcers themselves violate the law, who ensures accountability?
MEANING AND SCOPE OF CUSTODIAL DEATH
Custodial death refers to the death of a person who is under the control of law enforcement authorities. It includes deaths that take place in police custody, judicial custody, or even while the person is being taken from one place to another after arrest. Such deaths may occur due to torture during questioning, use of excessive force, denial of medical care, or under suspicious circumstances that are later explained as suicide or illness.[2] What makes custodial death extremely serious is that the individual is completely dependent on the State for safety. Since the State has full control over the person in custody, any death during this period creates a strong suspicion of State failure.
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF THE STATE
The Constitution of India does not take away fundamental rights simply because a person is accused of a crime. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to every person, including prisoners and detainees.[3] Any deprivation of life must follow a procedure that is fair and reasonable. Custodial violence, therefore, is a clear violation of Article 21.
Article 20(3) protects an accused person from being forced to confess or give evidence against themselves.[4] This protection clearly goes against coercive methods of interrogation. Together, these constitutional provisions impose a duty on the State to treat persons in custody with dignity and humanity, regardless of the offence alleged.
SAFEGUARDS UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Criminal law also provides safeguards to prevent custodial abuse. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires that an arrested person must be produced before a magistrate within twenty-four hours. This rule exists to prevent illegal detention and torture.
Medical examination of the accused at the time of arrest and during custody is also required. These procedures are meant to create transparency and protect the accused. However, in reality, these safeguards are often treated as routine formalities. In many custodial death cases, records are manipulated or procedures are followed only on paper.
ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY
The judiciary has played an important role in addressing custodial violence. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines related to arrest and detention.[5] These included preparation of arrest memos, informing family members, and medical examinations. The aim was to prevent abuse in custody and ensure accountability.
In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the Supreme Court recognised custodial death as a violation of fundamental rights and held the State liable to pay compensation.[6] The Court made it clear that compensation can be awarded even if criminal prosecution is still pending. This decision strengthened the principle that the State cannot escape responsibility for custodial deaths.
INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
1)National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
The National Human Rights Commission monitors cases of custodial death and requires that such incidents be reported within twenty-four hours. The Commission can conduct inquiries and recommend compensation or disciplinary action. However, its recommendations are not legally binding, which often reduces their effectiveness.
2)Judicial Oversight
Courts play a crucial role through judicial review, directions for investigation, and awarding compensation. High Courts often intervene in cases involving suspicious custodial deaths. However, judicial action usually takes place after the death has already occurred, highlghting the need for preventive measures.
3)Police Complaints Authorities
Police Complaints Authorities were established to address serious complaints against police officers. In practice, many of these bodies lack independence, resources, and enforcement powers. As a result, they often fail to function as effective accountability mechanisms.
ROLE OF MEDIA AND CIVIL SOCIETY
Media and civil society organisations play an important role in exposing custodial violence. Investigative journalism and reports by human rights groups often bring public attention to cases that would otherwise remain hidden. Public pressure created through media coverage often forces authorities and courts to take action.
CUSTODIAL DEATHS: DATA AND REALITY
Data published by the National Crime Records Bureau shows that custodial deaths continue to occur every year in India.[7] Although many deaths are recorded, very few cases result in conviction of police personnel. Human rights organisations have repeatedly pointed out problems such as under-reporting, incorrect classification of deaths, and lack of independent investigations. This shows that custodial violence is not an isolated issue but a structural problem.
OBSTACLES TO ACCOUNTABILITY
There are several reasons why accountability in custodial death cases remains weak:
- Investigations are often conducted by the same police department involved in the incident.
- Delays in magisterial inquiries affect the reliability of evidence.
- Conviction rates are extremely low.
- Medical and forensic evidence is often poorly handled.
- Victims usually come from marginalised sections of society.
These factors together create an atmosphere where police misconduct often goes
unpunished.
WHY CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE CONTINUES
Custodial violence continues due to long-standing policing practices, lack of strict punishment, political pressure, and social acceptance of harsh interrogation methods. Inadequate training in human rights and absence of effective supervision further contribute to the problem.
NEED FOR REFORMS
Preventing custodial deaths requires serious institutional reform. Independent agencies should investigate custodial death cases to ensure impartiality.[8] CCTV surveillance in police stations, time-bound judicial inquiries, and proper human rights training for police personnel are necessary steps. Most importantly, accountability bodies must be given real authority so that violations lead to actual consequences.
CONCLUSION
Custodial deaths reflect a serious failure of constitutional values and the criminal justice system. Despite strong constitutional provisions and judicial safeguards, lack of enforcement continues to undermine protection of life and liberty. The question of who will guard the guardians can only be answered through independent oversight, transparent investigations, and a police system that respects human dignity. Until custodial deaths are addressed with seriousness and accountability, constitutional promises will remain largely theoretical.
Author(s) Name: Rutuja Kadam (Narayanrao Chavan Law College, Nanded)
References:
[1] Legal Service India, ‘Custodial Violence and Police Accountability in India’ https://www.legalserviceindia.com/Legal-Articles/custodial-violence-and-police-accountability/%20accessed%2 018%20January%202026.
[2] The Legal Quorum, ‘Custodial Deaths in India: Legal Framework, Accountability and Reforms’ https://thelegalquorum.com/custodial-deaths-in-india-legal-framework-accountability-and-reforms-7/%20access ed%2018%20January%202026.
[3] Constitution of India 1950, Article 21.
[4] Constitution of India 1950, Article 20(3).
[5] D K Basu v State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1039996/%20accessed%2018%20January%202026.
[6] Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1277044/%20accessed%2018%20January%202026.
[7] National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics India 2023 https://ncrb.gov.in/en/prison-statistics-india%20accessed%2018%20January%202026.
[8] IAS Score, ‘Custodial Death: Causes, Concerns and Reforms’ https://iasscore.in/current-affairs/custodial-death%20accessed%2018%20January%202026.
