Custodial Torture And Human Rights Violations
What is Custodial Torture?
Custodial torture refers to the physical or mental torture inflicted on a person who is in police or judicial custody. It includes physical abuse, mental harassment, threats, sexual abuse, or any form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment while a person is detained.
Why is Custodial Torture a Human Rights Violation?
Fundamental Rights Violated: Custodial torture violates the right to life and personal liberty (e.g., Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, or Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights).
Right to Dignity: Torture breaches the inherent dignity of a person.
International Law: Prohibited under international conventions like the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Forms of Custodial Torture
Physical beatings
Electric shocks
Sexual violence
Psychological pressure, threats, sleep deprivation
Denial of medical aid
Constitutional and Legal Safeguards Against Custodial Torture
Right to life and liberty (Article 21 in India)
Protection against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
Access to legal counsel
Medical examination after arrest or detention
Judicial oversight (magistrate’s check)
Compensation for victims of custodial torture
Important Case Laws on Custodial Torture and Human Rights Violations
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: The Court dealt with the issue of custodial violence, custodial deaths, and the need for procedural safeguards.
Ruling: The Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines including:
Police must prepare arrest memo and get it attested by a family member or witness.
Police must inform family/friends about the arrest.
Medical examination of the accused at time of arrest and during custody.
Production of the detainee before magistrate within 24 hours.
Significance: Landmark case that established strict safeguards to prevent custodial torture and deaths in custody.
2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: Nilabati Behera’s son died in police custody due to torture.
Issue: Whether the State is liable for custodial death and compensation.
Ruling: The Court held the State liable for custodial torture and awarded compensation to the victim’s family.
Significance: Set precedent for State accountability and compensation in cases of custodial torture and death.
3. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: The petitioner was detained without proper legal procedure and tortured.
Ruling: The Court reiterated that illegal detention itself is a violation of fundamental rights, and that police must follow due process.
Significance: Reinforced the safeguards against illegal detention and custodial abuse.
4. Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: The petitioner was subjected to custodial torture by police.
Ruling: The Court held that torture violates the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Significance: Affirmed that torture is unconstitutional and illegal.
5. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: The case involved the use of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests on accused persons.
Issue: Whether such tests violate the right against self-incrimination and constitute torture.
Ruling: The Court held these tests without consent violate constitutional rights and may amount to torture.
Significance: Protected individuals from involuntary scientific interrogation methods that could cause mental torture.
6. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: Petition related to custodial violence and deaths.
Ruling: The Court recognized the problem of custodial violence and directed strict police reforms and accountability.
Significance: Strengthened mechanisms for monitoring police behavior and custodial conditions.
7. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: This case indirectly touched on medical negligence but is relevant to custodial torture where medical examination is crucial.
Ruling: Emphasized the importance of medical professionals’ role in preventing custodial torture by detecting injuries.
Significance: Strengthened the importance of medical safeguards in custody.
Summary and Conclusions
Custodial torture is a serious human rights violation undermining constitutional rights.
Courts across jurisdictions have consistently condemned custodial torture and emphasized procedural safeguards.
Compensation and State accountability are critical remedies for victims.
Continuous judicial activism and police reforms are necessary to eliminate custodial torture.
Rights such as access to counsel, timely medical exams, and judicial oversight reduce the risk of torture.
RELATED Blog
0 comments