Case Law On Custodial Torture
Custodial Torture: Overview
Custodial torture refers to the infliction of physical or mental pain or suffering on a person by police or other law enforcement officials while the person is in custody, detention, or arrest. Such acts violate fundamental human rights, including the right to life, dignity, and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Legal Context:
Most legal systems prohibit torture explicitly under constitutional protections, statutes, and international human rights treaties (e.g., UN Convention Against Torture).
Courts have developed doctrines to address custodial torture, including compensation for victims, accountability of officials, and preventive guidelines.
Torture often leads to unlawful confessions, raising issues of admissibility of evidence.
Important Case Laws on Custodial Torture
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: The case involved a petition regarding widespread custodial torture and deaths in police custody.
Holding: The Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines to prevent custodial torture, including:
Mandatory recording of arrest and detention.
Informing a relative or friend of the accused about the arrest.
Medical examination of the accused at the time of arrest and during detention.
Police custody only when absolutely necessary.
Relevance: This case is landmark for establishing safeguards against custodial torture and emphasizing state responsibility for preventing such abuse.
2. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: The case questioned the legality of narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain mapping used on accused persons.
Holding: The Court held that such techniques violate the right against self-incrimination and constitute a form of custodial torture unless voluntary and with consent.
Relevance: This case highlights that custodial torture is not limited to physical violence but includes psychological coercion and intrusive methods violating human rights.
3. McCann and Others v. United Kingdom (1995) – European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
Facts: The case involved the killing of three suspected IRA members by security forces in Northern Ireland, with allegations of excessive use of force and mistreatment.
Holding: The court scrutinized state responsibility for the use of force in custody and stressed that torture or inhuman treatment is absolutely prohibited.
Relevance: Emphasized strict limits on the use of force by authorities and reinforced state accountability for custodial abuses under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture).
4. Kudrat Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: The accused was tortured in custody leading to death.
Holding: The Court held that custodial torture leading to death violates constitutional rights, and police officers involved can be held criminally liable. The Court also emphasized the need for proper investigation and compensation.
Relevance: Reinforces criminal accountability and victims’ right to remedies for custodial torture.
5. A and Others v. United Kingdom (2009) – European Court of Human Rights
Facts: This case dealt with the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and allegations of torture.
Holding: The Court ruled that the UK violated the prohibition against torture by participating in or facilitating torture abroad, reinforcing the extraterritorial obligations against torture.
Relevance: Highlights international obligations to prevent torture even beyond national borders, reflecting the absolute prohibition of torture.
Summary of Principles from These Cases:
Custodial torture is a grave violation of fundamental rights protected by constitutional and international law.
Courts have mandated procedural safeguards (e.g., medical exams, informing relatives) to prevent torture.
Both physical and psychological forms of torture are prohibited.
Evidence obtained through torture is inadmissible.
Police and state officials can be held criminally liable for torture.
Victims are entitled to compensation and effective remedies.
States have an extraterritorial duty to prevent torture.
RELATED Blog
0 comments