Custodial Torture: Supreme Court's Call for Accountability in India

Custodial Torture Latest News

The Supreme Court has expressed strong criticism towards the Union government for failing to comply with its directive from five years ago to install CCTV cameras in all police stations and central agency offices, including the CBI, ED, and NIA. Shockingly, only 11 States/UTs have submitted compliance reports, while the Centre has remained silent on this crucial issue. The judges have voiced their alarm over the persistence of custodial torture, citing 11 custodial deaths in Rajasthan within just eight months.

Custodial Torture in India: A Persisting Human Rights Crisis

Custodial torture in India represents a widespread and systemic violation of human rights, characterized by both physical and psychological abuse of individuals in police or judicial custody. Despite the alarming number of custodial deaths occurring each year, the rates of conviction remain extremely low. This reflects a troubling culture of impunity and weak accountability mechanisms within the system. International law protects prisoners’ dignity and fundamental rights, emphasizing humane treatment as highlighted in the UN Charter (1945) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which safeguards individuals against torture and cruel treatment.

Scale of the Problem

The prevalence of custodial torture—both physical and psychological—continues to be a significant issue. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) reported 2,739 custodial deaths in 2024, a rise from 2,400 in 2023. Marginalized communities such as Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, and daily wage earners are disproportionately affected. The accountability for these violations remains shockingly low, with no convictions arising from 345 judicial inquiries conducted between 2017 and 2022, despite numerous arrests and charge sheets.

Why Custodial Torture Persists

• Absence of Specific Anti-Torture Law: India currently lacks dedicated legislation that criminalizes torture in accordance with global standards. Although it signed the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997, it has yet to ratify it.
• Culture of Impunity: Police personnel frequently protect one another, leading to a lack of accountability. This systemic misuse of coercive interrogation methods is widespread.
• Systemic and Institutional Failures: Overburdened police forces, inadequate training in non-coercive techniques, and insufficient oversight contribute to the problem.
• Weak Legal Protection for Victims: Fear of retaliation and lack of access to legal aid often dissuade victims from reporting instances of abuse.

Legal & Judicial Safeguards

• Article 14: Ensures equal treatment for all individuals, reinforcing that law enforcement agencies are not above the law.
• Article 21: Guarantees the right to life, which includes protection from torture.
• Article 20(1): Prevents conviction for acts that were not offenses at the time they were committed, protecting against excessive punitive actions.
• Article 20(3): Provides protection against self-incrimination.
• D.K. Basu Guidelines (1997): Mandate the issuance of arrest memos, medical examinations, and identification of police officers involved in arrests.

New Criminal Laws

• Section 120, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): Criminalizes causing harm or grievous hurt to extract confessions or information through violence or coercion.
• Section 35, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS): Stipulates that all arrests and detentions must adhere to legally valid and clearly documented procedures.
• Section 22, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA): Declares confessions obtained under threat, coercion, or promise as legally inadmissible.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Centre for Ignoring CCTV Directions

The Supreme Court has expressed its discontent regarding the fact that only 11 States/UTs have filed compliance affidavits concerning the installation of functional CCTVs in police stations. The Union government has yet to respond to this issue.

Background: The 2020 Nariman Judgment

In the case of Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh (2020), the Supreme Court mandated the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and offices of all agencies with powers of arrest and interrogation, including the NIA, CBI, ED, NCB, DRI, and SFIO. This measure was intended to protect fundamental rights and deter custodial torture.

Debate on CCTVs and Security Concerns

The Centre has argued that installing CCTV cameras outside police stations could pose security risks; however, the court countered this argument, pointing to successful implementations of live-streamed police stations in the U.S. and emphasizing the necessity for more transparent correctional facilities to alleviate overcrowding.