INTRODUCTION
Custodial Violence is defined as the use of violence against an individual during the period when he or she is under police or judicial custody. No one should be denied his or her liberty except according to the due process of law. Law enforcement officials have to work within the parameters of the law and ensure that the treatment of persons under their custody is humane. Inflicting agony on a person who is powerless and unable to retaliate in order to extract information from him is a very disgraceful way of investigation and a crude way of detecting crime (Bhagwan Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1992)[1]. This is not only a violation of human rights but also a challenge to the justice system of any democracy. Torture, coercion, and illegal custody not only erode the basic principles of justice but also shake the confidence of the people in law enforcement agencies. Despite constitutional safeguards and judicial interventions, custodial violence and custodial deaths continue to be reported in India. According to data provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs, based on information received from the National Human Rights Commission, 806 cases were registered in respect of custodial deaths across States and Union Territories between 1 April 2021 and 15 March 2026. [2]
This blog examines the issue of custodial violence, its impact on human rights, the legal framework governing custodial violence in India, the major legal challenges in preventing custodial abuse, and the preventive measures required to eliminate this menace. [3]
UNDERSTANDING CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE
Custodial violence, including torture and death in custody, is carried out in the name of “uniform” and “authority” in the walls of the police station, lock-up and prison, where the victims are totally helpless. It is the duty of law enforcement agencies to arrest a suspect and interrogate him when investigating a crime, but in the process of investigating the crime through interrogation, there is a strict prohibition against torture or coercive interrogation of the suspect in custody. The end does not justify the means. The inquiry and interrogation about the crime should have an actual intention of making the investigation more effective. Custodial deaths are not rare or unusual events. They occur not only in India but also in several other countries. Custodial violence may, in serious cases, result in custodial deaths, particularly where excessive force, torture or other forms of ill-treatment cause fatal injuries. There are many reasons for custodial violence, such as: Firstly, political interference in police functioning has been recognised as an institutional concern affecting the independence and impartial discharge of police functions. In Prakash Singh v Union of India (2006)[4], the Supreme Court directed the establishment of a State Security Commission to ensure that the State Government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the State police.
Moreover, one reason why this is so is the severe enforcement of law and order as a way of tackling the escalating crime rate without seeking out what might have caused such an escalation. Thirdly, the criminal justice system has failed. The present criminal-law framework is governed by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Accordingly, the legal safeguards against custodial violence should be examined with reference to these enactments, along with the constitutional protections and judicial safeguards applicable to persons in custody.[5]
The Indian criminal justice system has been in disarray because of its archaic and oppressive nature. This is because of some bad laws in the criminal justice system, like granting bail to desperate and dangerous individuals, delays in hearing cases in courts, causing court overloads, etc. All these aspects undoubtedly erode the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system. Fourthly, insufficient facilities have been provided – The lack of special lockups for females in many police stations has made it risky for women who are arrested and detained in the police stations. Fifthly, the absence of proper monitoring of senior officials results in violations of the rights of the people by junior officials. Consequently, officials often resort to shortcut methods, making it difficult for them to remain sensitive towards human rights.[6]
LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE IN INDIA
Constitutional Safeguards:
- Article-20: Article 20(3) of the Constitution provides that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This protection is particularly relevant to custodial interrogation as it safeguards an accused person against compelled self-incrimination and coercive methods used to obtain information or confessions. In Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court recognised Article 20(3) as an important safeguard against compelled self-incrimination and coercive investigative methods.[7]
- Article 21: Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty and requires that any procedure depriving a person of liberty must be fair, just and reasonable. The Supreme Court has held that the use of torture for extracting information from a person in custody is impermissible and violates Article 21. In K. Basu v State of West Bengal (1997)[8]the Court recognised custodial torture as a violation of human dignity and laid down safeguards to prevent custodial abuse.
- Article-22: Safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention. Article 22(1) states that everyone who is arrested will have the right to know about the reasons for their arrest and to consult and defend themselves through a lawyer of their choice.
LEGISLATIVE MEASURES AGAINST CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE IN INDIA
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 : The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides procedural safeguards for persons in custody. Section 56 imposes a duty upon the person having custody of an accused to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the accused. Section 57 requires a person arrested without warrant to be taken before the Magistrate or officer in charge of a police station without unnecessary delay. Section 58 provides that a person arrested without warrant shall not be detained for more than twenty-four hours, subject to the provisions of the Sanhita. Section 62 further provides that no arrest shall be made except in accordance with the provisions of the Sanhita. These safeguards are relevant to custodial violence as they impose legal limits on the exercise of custodial power and protect persons in custody. Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for a Magistrate’s inquiry into the cause of death in cases of death or disappearance in police custody.[9]
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides important safeguards against involuntary and coercive confessions. Section 22 provides that a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if it appears to have been caused by any inducement, threat, coercion, or promise having reference to the charge against the accused and proceeding from a person in authority. Section 23(1) further provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence. Section 23(2) provides that no confession made by a person while in the custody of a police officer shall be proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. However, information received from an accused person in police custody may be proved to the extent that it distinctly relates to a fact discovered. These provisions are particularly relevant to custodial violence as they protect accused persons against coercive interrogation and the use of involuntary confessions.[10]
ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY
The Judiciary has played a significant role in addressing custodial offences through various judgement.
In Joginder Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1994,[11] it has been held bythe Supreme Court that any arrest without any reasonable cause will amount to an illegal one.
In the case of D.K. Basu v. In the State of West Bengal[12], the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the foundation of Custodial Jurisprudence. It has been based on the issues related to the torture of a person in custody, violation of fundamental rights, citizens’ right to be compensated by the state and the quantum of such compensation as per the specific facts of the case. [13]
LEGAL CHALLENGES IN PREVENTING CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE AND THE WAY FORWARD
The problem of torture in lawful custody presents several global issues that range from societal standards to institutional resistance and poor legal enforcement. The mentioned factors can stand in the way of the prevention of torture, the prosecution of offenders and protection of people’s rights.
- Societal Standards: Some societies may have a tradition or even cultural background of the use of force by law enforcement officers in case of certain critical situations that require maintenance of peace or obtaining of some information very quickly. Minimum reactions from society regarding the use of torture in custodies may create an environment of impunity and allow these kinds of actions to continue.
- Institutional Resistance: Some law enforcement organisations may be against any kind of control and monitoring and create the environment in which violations can take place.
- Weak Legal Enforcement: There are no special laws in India that would criminalise torture, and this creates problems with prosecuting and punishing offenders. Despite the presence of certain laws, they might not be full-fledged enough or properly used. In some cases, the weak judicial system may become a reason for poor protection of victims since lawsuits can be processed for many years. Recent official records indicate that custodial deaths continue to be reported across India, highlighting the continuing gap between legal safeguards and their effective implementation. Such incidents underline the need for stronger accountability mechanisms and effective enforcement against custodial abuse.[14]
- Political Will: It may be that political officials are not eager to address the issue of torture since they concentrate on other problems or because they fear reprisals from security bodies. Addressing the above – mentioned problems requires the development of an overall strategy involving legal, public, and international measures and independent oversight systems. Efforts designed to change attitudes to torture in society and increase accountability in institutions are necessary for the creation of a society which uniformly condemns and prevents torture.
Improving the context of torture in lawful custody requires a strategy including legal measures, awareness programs and international cooperation. The goal should be improvement of accountability, transparency and support of victims. The following measures are essential: comprehensive anti-torture legislation, independent oversight mechanisms, human rights training for law enforcement personnel, public awareness programmes, and victim protection programmes.[15]
CONCLUSION
Custodial violence remains one of the greatest threats to the protection of human rights and to the rule of law in India. Even though there are constitutional, legal, judicial, and institutional safeguards that provide considerable protection against custodial violence, the actual implementation and enforcement of these safeguards remain a great challenge. Custodial violence brings out the need for greater accountability, tougher legal action, police reform, establishment of oversight bodies, and increased awareness among the citizens. To eradicate the problem of custodial violence, a rights-based approach that recognizes human dignity is required. India can make strides toward a criminal justice system that truly adheres to the constitutional principles of equality and human dignity through continued implementation of legal and institutional safeguards.
References:
[1] Bhagwan Singh and Another v. State of Punjab (1992) 3 SCC 249.
[2] Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No 5115, ‘Custodial Deaths’ (24 March 2026). Official MHA source
[3] Pawani Goel, ‘Custodial Violence in the Context of Human Rights (1 April,2025) https://legalresearchandanalysis.com/custodial-violence-in-the-context-of-human-rights/ accessed 22 July 2026.
[4] Prakash Singh v Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1.
[5] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Act 45 of 2023; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Act 46 of 2023; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, Act 47 of 2023.
[6] Pooja Talwar, ‘Violation of Human Rights by State: A Case Study of Custodial Violence in Delhi ‘ https://www.jmi.ac.in/upload/Research/ab2003_polscience_poojatalwar.pdf/ accessed 23 July 2026.
[7] Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263.
[8] D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416.
[9] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, ss 56–58, 62, 196
[10] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, ss 22–23.
[11] Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) 4 SCC 260.
[12] D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416.
[13] Suresh Chandra Sagar and Uday Veer Singh, ‘Legislative Reformsthese kindscustodyMinimalthe in India and Custodial Violence: A Legal Upgradation in Present Scenario’ (2024) 4(2) International Journal of Criminal, Common and Statutory Law 214 https://www.criminallawjournal.org/article/108/4-2-27-436.pdf accesed 24 July 2026.
[14] Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No 5115, ‘Custodial Deaths’ (24 March 2026).
[15] Santosh Kumar, ‘Torture in Lawful Custody in India: Analyzing the Violation of the UN Convention against Torture (UNCAT) and the Psychological Consequences of Torture’ (2024) ILI Law Review (Summer Issue) http://www.ili.ac.in/pdf/15sum24.pdf/ accessed 27 July 2026.
