Confronting the Shadows: Custodial Violence and Torture in India

When the very people entrusted with protecting citizens become the source of violence, something is deeply broken. Custodial violence and torture in India remain one of the most persistent human rights challenges, affecting thousands of detainees every year. In 2024, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) reported 2,739 custodial deaths, following approximately 2,400 cases in 2023. These numbers point to a systemic problem – one that sits at the uncomfortable intersection of law enforcement, criminal justice, and fundamental rights. This post unpacks what custodial violence means, why it persists, what the law says, and what reforms are needed to address it.

What is custodial violence? 🔗

Custodial violence refers to the infliction of torture or violence on an individual or group of persons while they are in the custody of the police or judiciary. According to the Law Commission of India, any crime committed by a public servant against an arrested or detained person amounts to custodial violence. It is important to note that no Indian statute formally defines the term “custodial violence,” which itself is part of the problem.

The word “custody” implies guardianship and protective care. It does not inherently carry any connotation of violence. Yet, the reality in police stations, lock-ups, and prisons tells a very different story. Custodial violence encompasses a wide range of abuses – illegal detention, wrongful arrest, humiliation of suspects, extortion of information under pressure, and physical, mental, and sexual violence.

Forms of custodial violence 🔗

Custodial violence takes both physical and psychological forms. Physical torture includes beatings, electric shocks, suffocation, sexual violence, forced stress positions, and denial of medical care. Psychological torture includes threats, humiliation, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, and mock executions. A significant number of cases also involve coercing detainees into admitting crimes through extreme duress – what is commonly referred to as “third-degree methods.”

There are also subtler methods, such as communication techniques where the victim is given false information to cause mental anguish, or compulsion where the victim is forced to perform or witness acts that cause psychological trauma.

Why does custodial violence persist in India? 🔗

The persistence of custodial violence is not simply about a few “bad apples” in the police force. It reflects deep-rooted structural and cultural problems in the criminal justice system.

Pressure to solve cases quickly 🔗

Victims are primarily subjected to torture to gather information during investigation, to extract confessions, and sometimes for bribes. Police departments are often under immense pressure to show results, and this pressure frequently translates into the use of violent shortcuts during interrogation. Many police officers are unaware that confessions collected by them in custody have no evidentiary value under the law. This ignorance – or deliberate disregard – perpetuates the cycle of violence.

Normalisation of violence 🔗

The issue lies in the culture of functioning of law enforcement agencies and the internalised acceptance of violence as a routine affair by the society at large. The Oxford Human Rights Hub notes that society and law enforcement gradually become immune to the everyday nature of custodial violence, and that the lack of adequate statutory safeguards effectively legitimises these acts.

Vulnerability of marginalised communities 🔗

Incidents involving severe beatings, forced confessions, and custodial deaths frequently occur, particularly targeting marginalised communities such as Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and migrant labourers. Data further shows that Scheduled Castes faced disproportionate custodial violence – making up 38.5% of detainees in some states despite being only 20% of the population.

Abysmally low conviction rates 🔗

India has a mere 5% conviction rate in cases of custodial torture and death. This near-total impunity sends a clear message to erring officers: there are virtually no consequences for their actions. Families of victims, who are often poor and socially marginalised, face intimidation and threats when they seek justice.

Constitutional and legal framework against custodial violence 🔗

India has a multi-layered legal framework that, in theory, offers robust protection against custodial violence. The challenge lies in implementation and enforcement.

Constitutional protections 🔗

The most fundamental protection comes from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this article expansively. The Court has held that the expression “life or personal liberty” includes the right to live with human dignity, and therefore it includes within itself a guarantee against torture and assault by the State or its functionaries.

Article 22 provides protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, requiring that arrested persons be informed of the grounds of arrest and be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. Article 14 ensures equality before the law, affirming that no one – including law enforcement officials – is above the law.

Provisions under the new criminal laws 🔗

India’s new criminal code framework, which replaced the IPC and CrPC, contains several relevant provisions:

Section 120 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 criminalises voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort a confession, obtain information about an offence, or compel the restoration of property. The punishment extends to seven years of imprisonment for causing hurt, and up to ten years for causing grievous hurt for these purposes.

Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 mandates that arrests and detentions follow valid reasons and documented procedures. Additionally, Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 invalidates confessions made under inducement, threat, coercion, or promise – thereby removing the legal incentive for extracting confessions through torture.

However, critics point out significant gaps. Section 120 of the BNS penalises only the form of hurt aimed at extorting confessions and does not cover other forms of torture and ill-treatment. Moreover, these provisions are merely reactive and not preventive in nature – they come into play only after harm has occurred and do not provide for prevention.

India and the UN Convention Against Torture 🔗

One of the most glaring gaps in India’s legal framework is the absence of a dedicated anti-torture law. India signed the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997 but has not yet ratified it or passed a central law to prevent custodial violence. The Law Commission of India, in its 273rd Report (2017), recommended ratification of UNCAT and submitted a draft Prevention of Torture Bill – but the government has not acted on it.

The government’s position that existing criminal laws ensure adequate protection against torture reflects an ignorance about the special nature of the offence of torture, where there is an inherent imbalance of power between the perpetrator and the victim.

Landmark judicial interventions 🔗

D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal (1997) 🔗

No discussion of custodial violence in India is complete without the D.K. Basu judgment. This is widely regarded as the most significant case on custodial violence in Indian criminal jurisprudence.

The case originated from a letter written by D.K. Basu, Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, to the Chief Justice of India, highlighting news reports about deaths in police lock-ups. The Supreme Court treated the letter as a Public Interest Litigation and laid down comprehensive guidelines for arrest and detention. Key requirements include: police officers must wear visible identification during arrests; an arrest memo must be prepared and attested by a witness; the arrestee’s family must be informed; a medical examination must be conducted every 48 hours; and detainees must be allowed to meet their lawyers during interrogation.

These guidelines were later incorporated into the Code of Criminal Procedure through the Amendment Act of 2008. While the guidelines have helped reduce custodial deaths, implementation remains inconsistent across the country.

Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh (2020) 🔗

In this case, the Supreme Court mandated the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and offices of central investigative agencies. The goal was to bring transparency to the interrogation process. However, compliance remains poor, with thousands of police stations still lacking functional cameras, and where cameras are installed, most fail to meet the Court’s standards.

Other key cases 🔗

In State of Uttar Pradesh vs Ram Sagar Yadav (1985), the Supreme Court held that in incidents of custodial torture, the responsibility to prove innocence rests with the concerned police officer – a crucial reversal of the burden of proof. In Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa (1993), the Court established that victims of custodial violence are entitled to compensation from the State under public law, in addition to private law remedies.

The human rights dimension 🔗

Custodial violence is not just a legal issue – it is fundamentally a human rights crisis. Multiple international instruments reinforce the prohibition of torture. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) protects individuals from torture, cruel treatment, and enforced disappearances, ensuring the right to dignity and security. India is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which explicitly prohibits torture.

In February 2025, the High Court of Justice in London rejected the extradition of an Indian national to India, holding that custodial torture was “commonplace and endemic” in the country. Such international observations damage India’s global reputation and raise serious questions about the effectiveness of domestic safeguards.

The path forward: reforms that matter 🔗

Enact comprehensive anti-torture legislation 🔗

The single most important reform is the enactment of a standalone anti-torture law. India needs a law that defines custodial torture by encompassing severity, purpose, and the inherent power imbalance, in line with the definition under Article 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture. The Prevention of Torture Bill has been pending for years – its passage is long overdue.

Ratify the UN Convention Against Torture 🔗

Ratification of UNCAT would bind India to specific obligations regarding prevention, investigation, and punishment of torture, and would subject its practices to international monitoring. India has formally invited international oversight but effectively blocks visits by mechanisms like the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

Strengthen police accountability 🔗

Separating the functions of law enforcement and investigation within the police can reduce conflicts of interest and minimise instances of custodial abuse. Mandatory CCTV surveillance in all police stations, as directed by the Supreme Court, must be enforced. Officers found guilty of custodial violence must face swift and meaningful punishment – not just departmental action, but criminal prosecution.

Empower victims and their families 🔗

Families of victims seeking justice often face intimidation and threats, and many of these families are poor and socially marginalised. An effective victim and witness protection law, adequately funded and implemented, is essential. Legal aid must be made genuinely accessible, not just available on paper.

Reform police training and culture 🔗

Introducing human rights training for police on lawful interrogation methods and the consequences of torture is critical. Modern, scientific methods of investigation – forensic evidence, digital tools, behavioural analysis – must replace the reliance on confessions obtained through violence.

Custodial violence and the role of the NHRC 🔗

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, plays a crucial role in addressing custodial violence. The NHRC addresses violations of human rights, including custodial torture. It requires that all cases of custodial death be reported to it within 24 hours, along with a post-mortem report and a videograph of the post-mortem examination.

However, the NHRC’s effectiveness is limited. It can only recommend action – it cannot compel compliance. Its recommendations for compensation or prosecution are often ignored by state governments. For the NHRC to become a truly effective check on custodial violence, it needs stronger enforcement powers and greater institutional independence.

A collective responsibility 🔗

Custodial violence is not an abstract legal concept – it affects real people, often the most vulnerable members of society. The Supreme Court has described custodial death as perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the Rule of Law. The right to life under Article 21 does not evaporate the moment a person is arrested. Every detainee – regardless of the crime they are accused of – retains their fundamental right to be treated with dignity.

Addressing custodial violence requires action at every level: legislation, judicial oversight, police reform, and public awareness. The legal framework exists in pieces, but it needs to be consolidated, strengthened, and – most importantly – implemented with sincerity. Until that happens, the gap between constitutional promise and ground reality will continue to cost lives.

What do you think? Should India prioritise the ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture and the enactment of a standalone anti-torture law – or are existing legal provisions sufficient if properly enforced? And to what extent should police officers be personally held liable, including financially, for custodial violence under their watch?

References

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/custodial-violence/
2. https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-curious-case-of-custodial-torture-in-india/
3. https://iasscore.in/current-affairs/mains/custodial-torture-cases-in-india
4. https://www.apnilaw.com/bare-act/bns/section-120-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-bns-voluntarily-causing-hurt-or-grievous-hurt-to-extort-confession-or-to-compel-restoration-of-property/
5. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/custodial-torture-in-india
6. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/501198/
7. https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/12/19/bound-brotherhood/indias-failure-end-killings-police-custody