Balancing Act: Police Duty Versus Custodial Violence

The police are often called the first line of defence in any democracy. They maintain public order, investigate crimes, and protect citizens from harm. But what happens when the very people entrusted with protection become the perpetrators of violence? In India, custodial violence – the use of torture, assault, or coercion against individuals held in police or judicial custody – remains one of the most pressing human rights challenges. The tension between effective law enforcement and the protection of fundamental rights is not just a legal debate; it has real consequences for thousands of people every year.

What is custodial violence? 🔗

Custodial violence refers to any form of physical, psychological, or sexual abuse inflicted upon a person while they are in the custody of law enforcement or judicial authorities. It includes illegal detention, wrongful arrest, humiliation, extortion of information under pressure, and physical or mental torture. The term itself is not defined in any single Indian statute, but it emerges from the intersection of two concepts: “custody,” meaning lawful guardianship or detention, and “violence,” meaning the use of force or coercion.

Custodial violence can occur both in police custody (immediately after arrest, typically at police stations during investigation) and judicial custody (when an accused is sent to jail by a court). However, the most severe incidents tend to occur in police custody, often within the first 24 to 48 hours of detention when interrogation is at its most intense. The forms of violence range from beatings and physical assault to mental harassment, threats, denial of food or medical care, and even sexual violence.

The constitutional duty of police 🔗

India’s police force does not operate in a legal vacuum. Under the Indian Constitution, particularly Articles 21 and 22, the police are envisioned as constitutional functionaries bound by law – not as instruments of coercion. Article 21 guarantees every person the right to life and personal liberty, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this right does not disappear the moment someone is arrested.

Article 20 protects individuals against double jeopardy and self-incrimination, while Article 22 specifically mandates that no arrested person shall be detained without being informed of the grounds for arrest, and they must not be denied the right to consult a legal practitioner of their choice. The arrested individual must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.

In essence, the police have a duty to enforce the law, investigate crime, and maintain order – but all of this must happen within the framework of constitutional limits. The Supreme Court’s position, notably in Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana (1980), has explicitly condemned custodial torture as being worse than terrorism itself.

Why does custodial violence persist? 🔗

Despite the robust legal framework, custodial violence continues to be a systemic problem in India. The reasons are both structural and cultural.

Confession-based investigation culture 🔗

Police departments in India often operate under immense pressure to solve cases quickly, leading to outdated practices that rely heavily on confession-based investigation rather than scientific or forensic methods. Limited forensic infrastructure, chronic understaffing, and inadequate training make torture an easier – though entirely unlawful – shortcut for extracting information. This is a fundamental failure, because Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, clearly states that confessions made before police officers carry no evidentiary value. Many officers are not even aware of this provision.

Institutional protection and accountability gaps 🔗

According to NCRB data spanning 2001 to 2018, 1,727 custodial deaths were recorded in India, yet only 26 police officers were convicted for such violations. This massive gap between the number of incidents and the number of convictions speaks volumes. Officers accused of torture often benefit from departmental support, political patronage, or procedural loopholes that delay prosecution. The requirement of government sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC acts as a significant barrier.

Disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities 🔗

NCAT’s analysis revealed that roughly 60% of custodial deaths between police custody involved individuals from poor and marginalised communities, including daily-wage workers, migrants, and members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Custodial violence is not just a policing problem – it is also a social justice issue.

Other contributing factors 🔗

Additional causes include the disproportionate ratio between crime rates and police manpower, a lack of effective supervision at police stations by senior officers, the absence of timely medical or psychological screening of police personnel, and a deeply entrenched belief among some officers that “third-degree methods” are an acceptable part of the job. Long working hours and deplorable working conditions further push some officers towards resorting to violent methods.

The alarming numbers 🔗

The statistics paint a grim picture. According to the NHRC, there were 11,650 deaths in custody in India between 2016 and 2022, with Uttar Pradesh alone reporting 2,630 custodial deaths – the highest in the country. In the financial year 2021-22, the NHRC recorded over 2,150 deaths in judicial custody and 155 deaths in police custody.

In 2024, the NHRC reported 2,739 custodial deaths, of which 155 were attributed specifically to police custody. The Global Torture Index 2025 classified India as a “high risk” country for systemic torture. These are not just numbers – they represent a systemic failure in the protection of human rights within India’s criminal justice system.

Landmark judicial interventions 🔗

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has played a critical role in trying to curb custodial violence through a series of landmark judgments.

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

This is arguably the most significant case in India’s custodial violence jurisprudence. D.K. Basu, the Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services in West Bengal, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court drawing attention to rising deaths in police custody. The Court treated the letter as a Public Interest Litigation and, after extensive hearings, laid down 11 binding guidelines for arrest and detention.

These guidelines include: police officers making arrests must wear visible name tags with their designations; an arrest memo must be prepared and attested by a witness (who may be a family member); the arrested person must be informed of the right to have someone notified of their arrest; a medical examination must be conducted every 48 hours; and the arrestee must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. These guidelines were later incorporated into the Code of Criminal Procedure through the 2008 Amendment Act.

The Court declared that custodial torture is not just illegal – it is a violation of fundamental rights and a blow against the rule of law itself.

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 🔗

This case established the principle of state liability for custodial violations, with the Supreme Court awarding monetary compensation and recognising that the state bears responsibility when individuals in its custody are harmed. The Court affirmed that constitutional courts have both the power and the duty to provide remedies for the violation of fundamental rights.

Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) 🔗

In this case, the Supreme Court directed the installation of CCTV cameras with night vision and audio recording capabilities in all police stations and prisons, and ordered the formation of independent state and district-level oversight committees. This was a significant step towards making police stations more transparent and accountable.

Legal safeguards against custodial violence 🔗

India has a layered legal framework designed to prevent custodial abuse, though implementation remains a challenge.

Constitutional protections 🔗

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, meaning accused persons cannot be discriminated against based on their custody status. Article 20 protects against self-incrimination and retrospective criminal laws. Article 21 provides the right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the right to live with dignity – a right that extends to prisoners and undertrials. Article 22 ensures protection against arbitrary arrest and detention.

Statutory provisions 🔗

Sections 330 and 331 of the Indian Penal Code (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) specifically criminalise the act of voluntarily causing hurt to extort confessions or information. Section 376(2)(c) addresses custodial rape with enhanced punishment. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), Section 176(1) mandates a judicial inquiry in every case of custodial death or rape.

The Indian Evidence Act (now the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) under Section 24 makes confessions obtained through threats or inducements inadmissible, and Section 25 renders confessions made to police officers generally inadmissible. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, provides additional protection when custodial violence targets members of these communities.

International obligations 🔗

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7) both prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. India has signed the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) but has not yet ratified it, and a dedicated anti-torture law still remains absent despite the Law Commission of India’s 273rd Report (2017) recommending such legislation.

The role of the NHRC and magistrates 🔗

The NHRC requires mandatory reporting of all custodial deaths within 24 hours. It issues advisories, seeks compliance reports from states, and recommends compensation. However, the NHRC has its limitations – it lacks prosecutorial powers and often its recommendations are not binding on state governments.

Magistrates play a crucial role as the first judicial authority before whom an arrested person is produced. If the magistrate fails to inquire into visible signs of torture or hear the detainee properly, the entire safeguard mechanism breaks down. Proactive and vigilant magistrates can be the most effective check against custodial abuse.

The path to reform 🔗

Addressing custodial violence requires a multi-pronged approach that goes beyond legislation and courtroom interventions.

Ratifying UNCAT and enacting anti-torture legislation 🔗

India needs to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and pass a standalone anti-torture law. Despite the Law Commission’s recommendation, Parliament has not yet enacted such a law. A dedicated statute would create specific offences, define punishments, and establish clear accountability mechanisms for custodial torture.

Implementing police reforms 🔗

Implementing the recommendations of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission and the Supreme Court’s directives in the Prakash Singh case is critical. This includes establishing independent Police Complaints Authorities, separating investigation from law-and-order functions, and ensuring fixed minimum tenures for senior police officers to reduce political interference.

Strengthening forensic and scientific investigation 🔗

Reducing dependence on confession-based investigation requires investment in forensic infrastructure, training in modern interrogation techniques, and adoption of scientific evidence collection methods. When police have better tools, the temptation to rely on physical coercion diminishes.

CCTV surveillance and body cameras 🔗

Body cameras with audio recording and GPS tracking, along with properly maintained CCTV systems in all police stations and interrogation rooms, can serve as powerful deterrents. However, there have been reports of officers tampering with or switching off cameras, so independent monitoring of this footage is equally important.

Human rights training and sensitisation 🔗

Promoting human rights education and anti-discrimination training in police academies is essential. Regular psychological and physical assessments of police personnel can help identify officers who may be unfit for duties involving direct contact with detainees. The goal is not to weaken policing but to make it more professional and effective.

Strengthening the role of NHRC 🔗

The NHRC needs to be granted greater prosecutorial powers and resources. Currently, it can only recommend – it cannot enforce. Giving the Commission more teeth would significantly improve accountability in custodial violence cases.

Criminal law reforms of 2023: a step forward? 🔗

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the CrPC, introduces provisions for greater transparency in arrests and mandates the use of forensic methods in investigations. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, aim to modernise penal and evidentiary laws, with a stated goal of reducing dependence on confession-based policing. Whether these new laws translate into meaningful change on the ground remains to be seen.

Balancing enforcement with rights 🔗

The real challenge lies in finding a balance. The police must have the power and tools to investigate serious crimes, maintain public order, and ensure the safety of citizens. At the same time, these powers cannot be exercised at the cost of individual dignity and human rights. As the Supreme Court noted in the D.K. Basu case, interrogation must be sustained and scientific – third-degree methods are impermissible. The state’s action must always be “right, just, and fair.”

A citizen does not shed their fundamental rights the moment a police officer arrests them. Being in custody – even for the most serious offence – does not strip a person of their right to be treated with basic human dignity. The rule of law demands that punishment follows a fair trial, not police brutality in a lock-up.

What do you think? Can India’s new criminal laws and judicial oversight mechanisms truly change the culture of custodial violence, or does the problem require deeper structural and attitudinal reform within the police force itself? And how can ordinary citizens play a role in holding law enforcement accountable?

References

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/custodial-violence/
2. https://advocatetanwar.com/custodial-violence-in-india-legal-standards-systemic-issues-and-the-path-to-reform/
3. https://vishnuias.com/custodial-violence-in-india-constitutional-role-police/
4. https://thelegalquorum.com/custodial-violence-in-india-legal-safeguards-and-judicial-responses-5/
5. https://blog.ipleaders.in/dk-basu-vs-state-of-west-bengal-1997-case-analysis/
6. https://www.drishtiias.com/current-affairs-news-analysis-editorials/news-editorials/2025-07-31
7. https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1893/Custodial-Violence-in-India.html
8. https://www.nextias.com/ca/current-affairs/26-09-2025/custodial-deaths-india
9. https://lawbhoomi.com/dk-basu-vs-state-of-west-bengal/
10. https://www.jneonatalsurg.com/index.php/jns/article/download/3894/3441/16078
11. https://www.pmfias.com/custodial-deaths-in-india/