INTRODUCTION
The term “custodial violence” is not defined under any Act, but the Latin word “custodia” means to keep under watch or care. In the legal sense, the word implies confinement in a prison or other detention facility. Violence means physical force unlawfully exercised; abuse of force which is employed against common right, against the laws, and against public liberty1. So, basically, it means administering violence to a person in custody. Custodial Violence remains an area of clear violations of Human Rights through the abuse of police power. The Constitution of India provides a legal framework intended to protect against arbitrary state action. Article 21 provides a Right to life and personal liberty, asserting that no person shall be deprived of these rights except in accordance with the procedure established by law2. Custodial Violence includes both physical and psychological forms of torture inflicted on the individual in police or judicial custody. This broad definition aligns with legal analysis and human rights reports, which categorize it into beatings, electric shock, and threats or humiliation. The worst type of human rights violation is Custodial violence, it’s because it occurs when a police officer arrests an innocent person for speedy disposal of the case or any other matters, they have become the perpetrators of torture and inhuman treatment. Custodial violence is something India still struggles to face directly.
UNDERSTANDING THE FORMS OF CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE
Physical Torture: Inflicting bodily harm to extract confessions. These actions directly contravene the protections under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and are punishable under Section 313 (causing hurt to extort confession) and Section 314 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (replacing IPC Sections 330 and 331). Medical examination of detainees often reveals untreated injuries, fractures, and internal bleeding indicative of deliberate infliction of pain.
Mental Torture: Psychological torment through intimidation, seclusion, or degradation often leads victims to experience anxiety, depression, PTSD, and various mental health issues that persist post-release. Regrettably, such torture is frequently underreported owing to the absence of visible injuries and inadequate mental health resources in correctional facilities.
Custodial Death: Deaths in custody, stemming from mistreatment or oversight, underscore profound lapses in protecting detainees’ lives; The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) documented 2,152 such incidents in judicial and police custody across India during 2021-22. NHRC records indicate a persistent concern with custodial deaths, reporting 157 cases in 2023-24 (police custody) and 140 cases in 2024-25.
Sexual abuse: Sexual assault in detention constitutes a severe infringement on personal integrity and physical self- determination. Numerous cases remain undisclosed owing to societal taboos, threats of reprisal, and insufficient responsive reporting systems attuned to gender needs. Custodial sexual assault undermines physical sovereignty while contravening global treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Imagine someone in custody enduring unimaginable horrors like electric shocks, brutal beatings, or harsh third-degree methods-that’s physical torment straight out of a nightmare. Then there’s the mental anguish from solitary confinement, cruel verbal abuse, sleep deprivation, and terrifying threats. And don’t get me started on sexual abuse, which hits women and marginalized folks hardest but stays hidden because of the deep shame it brings-often going unreported. It’s not just the police; prison staff and other custodians do this too, creating a chilling culture of fear where no one feels safe or held accountable3.
LEGAL FRAMEWORKS
Custodial Violence constitutes a grave violation of fundamental human rights, infringing upon the right to life, dignity, and freedom from torture as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Constitution mandates the protection of the human dignity of all individuals; it’s the police officer’s responsibility to protect the life and dignity of every detainee. The 177th report of the Law Commission of India (2001) suggested incorporating Section 55A into the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which mandates police officers to safeguard the health and safety of individuals in custody. This provision from the CrPC now corresponds to Section 56 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with no substantive changes4. Custodial Violence stems from the act of abuse of power by the police, and is a cause of concern to not only the affected person but also to society at large. Custodial Violence and abuse of power by the police is a cause of concern, to protect the human rights of prisoners. Police cannot be allowed to accomplish behind closed doors what the general public order and the law forbid5.
The Indian Constitution acknowledges prisoners’ rights, treating them as dignified citizens despite incarceration. It curbs authorities’ powers and offers protection against custodial violence. Article 14 ensures equality before the law, mandating dignified treatment for prisoners. Article 20 safeguards against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination in convictions. Article 21 upholds the right to life and personal liberty, shielding individuals from torture, assault, rape, or harm. Article 22 guards against arrest and detention without prompt disclosure of grounds. In case of violation of fundamental rights, any person can file a writ petition under Article 32 or 226 to the Supreme Court or to the High Court, respectively. The Constitutional Courts are the sentinels of justice and have been vested with the extraordinary powers of judicial review to ensure that the rights of citizens are duly protected6. Doctrinal research methodology entails a structured review and integration of legal sources to uncover core themes, developments, and consistencies concerning custodial violence and the Supreme Court’s preventive interventions. Through scrutiny of judicial decisions, statutory rules, and doctrinal norms, this approach aims to clarify India’s regulatory structure for custodial violence while evaluating its effectiveness in upholding detainees’ rights.
Hegde’s research examines custodial deaths in Karnataka, exploring their causes, trends, and judicial outcomes. It highlights how law enforcement fails to curb torture and fatalities in custody, even with available legal protections. The analysis advocates for police restrictions, stronger court monitoring, and enhanced measures to safeguard those in detention7. A paper also provides a socio-legal examination of custodial deaths in India, delving into their legal, societal, and moral dimensions. It critiques the Indian judicial system’s shortcomings in delivering justice to affected families and highlights institutional structures that sustain these incidents. The work urges enhanced legislation to curb such deaths and safeguards basic constitutional protections8. In Choudhary, S.K. (2016), the author examines torture during detention in Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing the nexus between law enforcement abuses and infringements on human rights. This analysis assesses the efficacy of judicial interventions and protective statutes in mitigating detention-related violence, while underscoring inadequate policing reforms and the imperative for institutional overhauls9.
Even though concerns about violence inside police stations and lock-ups have been growing, the law has been slow to catch up, with the 2010 Prevention of Torture Bill, which sought to stop custodial torture, when the Lok Sabha was dissolved; more recently, the Law Commission of India, in its 273rd Report, has recommended fresh anti-torture laws and urges India to ratify UNCAT, yet without a dedicated law on torture, it remains hard to hold people accountable for custodial violence; on top of that, there have been suggestions to amend the CrPC and the Indian Evidence Act so that when someone dies or is tortured in custody, the responsibility to prove their innocence falls on the jailers and police instead10.Later in 2017, the Prevention of Torture Bill aimed to curb unlawful arrests and police brutality by making torture a punishable offence and creating pathways for victim relief and reparations. Yet, its failure to secure parliamentary approval has perpetuated a critical void in laws tackling detention-related mistreatment and abuses11.
When Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was amended in 2009, provisions 41A, 42B, and 41D were added to put humanity at the center of the process, ensuring that no arrest or detention for interrogation happens without a genuine reason and proper documentation, that loved ones and the public are kept in the loop, and that everyone has the right to legal protection.
Under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023(BNSS), police officers can arrest someone without a warrant, but only under certain conditions. These include reasonable doubt that a serious offense has been committed, the need for arrest for investigative purposes, and reliable information or evidence against the person. In addition, Section 41A says that for less serious offenses where the maximum punishment is up to seven years in prison, police must issue a notice asking the person to appear before them, rather than making an arrest.
Section 43 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (BNSS) explains how a private person can arrest someone. It requires that anyone who makes such an arrest must immediately hand over the arrested person to a police officer or take them to the closest police station. This rule is designed to stop random or unfair detentions and to make sure all the arrests follow the law. Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) sets out the proper procedure for making an arrest. The arresting officer is required to inform the individual being arrested about the reasons for the arrest, their right to bail, and their right to legal counsel. Furthermore, the officer must create a written record of the arrest, mentioning details like the time and place of the arrest, and give a copy of that record to the person arrested. Section 58 of BNSS, 2023 mandates that a person arrested without a warrant shall not be detained beyond 24 hours, excluding travel time to the nearest magistrate’s court; if the investigation remains incomplete, the arrested person must be produced before a magistrate, who may authorize further detention for a specified period, not exceeding 15 days in total.
The Right to Information Act, 2005, is essential for making the justice system more open and answerable to the public. It allows citizens to obtain information from public authorities, including details about arrests and detentions. By bringing greater transparency to how arrests and detentions are carried out, the RTI Act enables citizens to hold public authorities responsible for their actions and decisions.
Under Section 176(1) of the CrPC, if someone dies in police custody or while in state care, a Judicial Magistrate or Executive Magistrate has to step in and investigate what really happened.
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023, which replaced the Indian Evidence Act, Section 23(1) makes it clear you can’t use a confession someone made directly to a police officer in court, because there’s a real risk officers could torture or pressure innocent people into admitting guilt. Section 23(2) builds on this by banning proof of any confession made by an accused while in police custody unless a magistrate is right there hearing it, to prevent abuse. However, it carves out a narrow exception: if the accused’s statement in custody leads police to discover key evidence or facts, just that specific part can be used in court.
Under Sections 7 and 29 of The Indian Police Act of 1861, a police officer who is careless in their duties or unfit for the job can face suspension, penalties, or even dismissal12. But since police and public order are state subjects under the Constitution’s 7th schedule, the primary responsibility for protecting people’s human rights rests with each state government, while the Central government steps in by issuing helpful advisories and enacting the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHR), 1993, which created the NHRC and State Human Rights Commissions as watchdogs to look into any human rights violations committed by public servants.
JUDICIAL RESPONSE
Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan13. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India took a strong stand against police brutality by addressing the issue of custodial violence and police misconduct. The petitioner, Amar Singh, a real person who suffered torture while in custody in Rajasthan, claimed that his basic fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution were violated. The Court made it clear that the state has a duty to protect its people from such abuse by law enforcement, setting important rules to prevent custodial violence and hold authorities accountable.
In the Francis Coralie Mullin case14, the Supreme Court dealt with police brutality inside jails and lock-ups, focusing on the right to life and personal liberty under the Constitution. The petitioner challenged laws that allowed people to be held and questioned without proper protections. The Court ruled that human dignity comes first and torture is never allowed, ruling that any form of custodial violence violates fundamental rights. This case reminded everyone that the judiciary protects constitutional values and set an important rule for safeguarding the rights of prisoners in India.
In Gauri Shanker Sharma etc. v. State of U.P15. The court observed that it is usually very hard to gather evidence against police officers responsible for deaths in custody, because they control station records and can easily tamper with them, just as happened in this case. What makes the offence even more serious is that it is committed by someone who is meant to protect citizens, not misuse their uniform and authority to brutally assault a person in their custody. Death in police custody must be taken very seriously; otherwise, we will be moving dangerously close to police rule. Such acts must be stopped firmly and harshly. The punishment should be severe enough to discourage others from ever behaving this way. There is no room for showing leniency.
In the case of Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P16. The court expanded the understanding of torture beyond just physical harm, recognizing that mental and psychological suffering, when intended to terrify a person and compel them to give in to the demands or orders of authorities, also amounts to torture.
D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal17. This is the landmark case that laid down guidelines to prevent custodial violence and ensure the protection of fundamental rights. Highlighting numerous instances of custodial torture and deaths in West Bengal, the petitioner sought judicial intervention to safeguard detainees’ rights. In this historic judgement, the Supreme Court issued directives known as the “D.K. Basu guidelines.” This required safeguards, such as the mandatory recording of arrests, notifying the detainee’s relatives, and arranging medical examinations. This case set a precedent for judicial activism in protecting human rights and preventing custodial abuses throughout India.
RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTIONS
Custodial violence continues to remain a deeply troubling issue in India, largely because holding police officers accountable has proven to be an ongoing challenge. Despite repeated efforts by legal bodies and the judiciary, meaningful reform has been slow and incomplete. Over the years, several important recommendations have limited their impact.
One of the most significant suggestions came from the 113th Law Commission Report,18 which proposed an amendment to the Indian Evidence Act. It recommended the insertion of Section 114B, aimed at shifting the burden of proof in cases of custodial violence. Under this provision, if a person suffers death or injury while in police custody, the court may presume that the harm was caused by the police officer responsible for that custody. This shift is crucial because victims of custodial violence are often in no position to produce direct evidence, making accountability difficult under the existing framework.
In addition to this, both the judiciary and the 152nd Law Commission Report have emphasized the urgent need for independent investigative agencies in such cases. The concern stems from the inherent conflict of interest when police officers investigate allegations against their own colleagues. This issue was notably highlighted in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab,19 where the Supreme Court transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) due to doubts about the credibility of the local police inquiry.
However, despite these well- reasoned recommendations and judicial interventions, their implementation has been inconsistent. The absence of a robust and independent mechanism to address custodial violence continues to weaken accountability, allowing such incidents to persist. As a result, custodial violence remains not just a legal concern but also a serious human rights issue that demands stronger institutional commitment and reform. Hence, it is very evident that there is an urgent need to bring reforms to curtail the issues related to custodial violence and safeguard the rights of an accused.
CONCLUSION
Custodial Violence represents more than just a breakdown in legal safeguards; it points to a deeper moral failing within the system. At its core, it signifies a continuing disregard for fundamental rights, especially the right to life and personal dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. When those entrusted with protecting citizens misuse their authority, it strikes at the very foundation of a democratic society. Instead of ensuring safety and justice, such actions create fear and insecurity, particularly among marginalized groups who are often most vulnerable to abuse.
Concrete legal measures are essential. These include enacting a comprehensive anti-torture law, strengthening independent oversight mechanisms with real enforcement powers, and ensuring timely judicial review in cases of alleged abuse. At the same time, reform must also occur within law enforcement culture. Moreover, mechanisms for independent and impartial investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of cases of custodial violence must be established to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights.
In conclusion, tackling custodial violence in India requires a comprehensive and sustained approach rather than isolated or short-term measures. Meaningful change will depend on the combined efforts of an informed and engaged public, proactive judicial intervention, better training and sensitization of the police personnel, independent oversight mechanisms, and strong legislative reforms, including the enactment of effective anti-torture laws.
*****
Footnotes
1. Anderson Berney Bldg. Co. v Lowry Tex Civ App, 143 SW 2d 401,403.
2. India const.art.21.
3. Human Rights Watch, Broken System: Dysfunction, `Abuse and Impunity in the Indian Police 58(2009).
4. Dr. N.V. Paranjape, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 91., 9th ed. 2025.
5. Gauri Shanker Sharma etc v. State of U.P. AIR 1990 SC 709.
6. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 2 SCC 532 LNINDORD 2017 SC 6549.
7. Hegde, S. (2015). “Custodial Deaths in India: A Study with Special Reference to Karnataka”. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research, 3(3), 237-249.
8. Gopalan, A. (2019). “Custodial Deaths and Human Rights in India: A Socio-Legal Analysis”. Journal of Legal Studies and Research, 5(1), 46-61.
9. Choudhary, S. K. (2016). “Custodial Torture and Human Rights: A Study with Special Reference to Uttar Pradesh”. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 5(6), 38-43.
10. Law Commission of India, 273rd Report on Implementation of UNCAT,2017, p.42.
11. Jayshree Bajoria, “‘Bound by Brotherhood’” Human Rights Watch (2016).
12. Police Act, 1861 §§ 7, 29 (India).
13. Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1957 SC 369 (India).
14. Francis Coralie ‘Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1981 SC 746 (India).
15. Gauri Shanker Sharma etc. v. State of U.P. AIR 1990 SC 709 (India).
16. Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P AIR 1995 SC 117 (India).
17. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 (India).
18. See LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEENTH REPORT ON INJURIES IN POLICE CUSTODY (Law Commission of India, New Delhi, 1985) (113th Report of Law Commission)
19. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC 1689(India).