Judicial Interventions in Custodial Death Cases
- ByAdmin --
- 06 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
Custodial deaths, which occur when individuals die in the custody of police or other authorities, represent one of the gravest violations of human rights. Indian judiciary has played a significant role in addressing and curbing such abuses through active intervention, landmark judgments, and evolving legal standards.
Constitutional Provisions
- Article 21: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Any form of torture or death in custody is a direct violation of this fundamental right.
- Article 22: Protects rights of arrested persons, including protection against illegal detention.
- Article 32 and 226: Empower individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court and High Courts for enforcement of fundamental rights through writ petitions.
Important Legal Frameworks
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
- Section 302: Punishment for murder — applicable in custodial death cases.
- Section 304: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Section 330 and 331: Punish voluntary hurt to extort confession or information.
- Section 302: Punishment for murder — applicable in custodial death cases.
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC):
- Section 176(1A): Mandates judicial inquiry in cases of custodial deaths or disappearances.
- Section 176(1A): Mandates judicial inquiry in cases of custodial deaths or disappearances.
- Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993:
- Established the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions to investigate custodial deaths and recommend action.
Landmark Judicial Interventions
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
- Significance:
- Laid down detailed guidelines to prevent custodial violence.
- Directed mandatory procedures during arrest and detention, such as:
- Preparation of arrest memo.
- Medical examination of the arrested person.
- Informing a relative or friend of the arrestee.
- Laid down detailed guidelines to prevent custodial violence.
- Impact:
- These guidelines were later given statutory force by incorporating them into CrPC amendments.
2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
- Significance:
- Court awarded compensation for custodial death, recognizing monetary relief as a public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights under Article 21.
- Court awarded compensation for custodial death, recognizing monetary relief as a public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights under Article 21.
- Impact:
- Shifted focus toward state liability for custodial deaths.
3. People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2014)
- Significance:
- Issued guidelines for independent investigation into cases of death in police encounters.
- Called for registration of FIR and magisterial inquiry in encounter deaths.
- Issued guidelines for independent investigation into cases of death in police encounters.
4. Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016)
- Significance:
- Supreme Court emphasized on prison reforms, improving conditions, and preventing torture and deaths inside jails.
Recent Trends and Directions
- NHRC Guidelines:
- Every custodial death must be reported within 24 hours.
- Post-mortem examination and videography mandatory.
- Compensation to the victim’s family depending on inquiry findings.
- Supreme Court in 2020-2021:
- Expressed serious concerns over increasing cases of custodial violence.
- Urged the government to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), which India has signed but not yet legislated domestically.
- Draft Prevention of Torture Bill:
- Proposed to specifically criminalize custodial torture but remains pending.
Challenges Despite Judicial Activism
- Lack of Accountability: Many officers escape punishment due to weak investigations or lack of political will.
- Poor Implementation: Guidelines are often violated or ignored at ground level.
- Fear and Intimidation: Victims' families fear reprisal and hesitate to seek justice.
- Institutional Bias: Investigations often conducted by the same department involved in abuse.
Conclusion
Judicial interventions have undeniably strengthened the legal framework protecting individuals from custodial deaths. However, without effective implementation, independent investigations, police reforms, and stronger legislative backing, custodial violence will continue to be a blot on the rule of law.
The judiciary has made it clear: custodial deaths are not just a crime against the individual, but an assault on the very essence of democracy and constitutionalism.
RELATED Blog
0 comments