Holding Police Accountable: India’s Custodial Death Laws

India’s judicial system faces a massive backlog of cases, with new ones filed daily. When cases are reported, police follow standard procedures, often arresting suspects. To extract confessions, some officers use torture, occasionally leading to custodial deaths, which violate natural justice and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing the right to life. Police, as public servants, must uphold these rights. This article explores India’s legal framework for holding police accountable for custodial deaths, addressing enforcement challenges, key court rulings, and recent statistics.

Understanding Custodial Death:

Definition: Custodial death occurs when a person dies in police or judicial custody due to torture, neglect, suicide, or medical issues.

Police Custody:

• Involves detention by police for investigation under Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, limited to 24 hours without magisterial approval, extendable to 15 days with court permission (BNSS Section 187).

• High risk for custodial deaths due to police control and practices like torture (prohibited under BNS Section 120).

• Supreme Court’s D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) mandates safeguards like arrest documentation and medical exams.

• NHRC (2023–2024) reports many of the 1,757 custodial deaths occurred in police custody, often linked to brutality.

Judicial Custody:

• Detention in jail under a magistrate’s order (BNSS Section 187), managed by jail authorities under the Prisons Act, 1894.

• Deaths often due to neglect, poor medical care, or suicide; torture is less common.

• Supreme Court’s Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) holds the state liable for judicial custody deaths, emphasizing Article 21’s right to life.

• NHRC notes overcrowding and inadequate facilities contribute to judicial custody deaths, with mandatory reporting within 24 hours.

Legal Framework For Custodial Death In India

Under Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023:

Section 196: Mandates a magisterial inquiry for custodial deaths, disappearances, or alleged rape in police or judicial custody, conducted independently of police investigations. Requires medical examination of the body within 24 hours and notification of relatives, who may attend the inquiry. Allows disinterment if needed to determine the cause of death.

Section 58: Limits police detention to 24 hours without a Magistrate’s order, excluding transport time, to prevent prolonged custody and potential abuse.

Section 187: Ensures judicial oversight when investigations exceed 24 hours. Magistrates may authorize up to 15 days of police custody within the initial 60 or 90 days of judicial custody, with total police custody not exceeding 15 days.

Section 56: Mandates ensuring the health and safety of arrested persons in custody.

Section 53: Requires medical examination of arrested persons to document injuries or health conditions, enhancing accountability

Constitutional and Human Rights Safeguards

• Article 21 of the Constitution:

  Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which encompasses protection from torture, inhuman treatment, and arbitrary detention. Any violation, including custodial death, constitutes a breach of this fundamental right.

• Role of Human Rights Commissions:

  Victims or their families can seek redress through the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions, which have the authority to investigate custodial deaths and recommend compensation and prosecution of responsible officials

The Prevention of Custodial Torture Bill, 2023

It is introduced as a private member's bill in the Rajya Sabha on December 8, 2023, by Prof. Manoj Kumar Jha, the Bill aims to prevent custodial torture by public servants, prescribe punishments, ensure compensation and rehabilitation for victims, and protect complainants and witnesses.

The Key provision it includes

1. Definition (Section 3): Custodial torture includes intentional physical or mental suffering for obtaining information, punishment, or discrimination based on caste, religion, gender, etc.

2. Burden of Proof (Section 4): Public servants must prove torture was not intentional, enhancing accountability.

3. Punishments:

   • General Torture (Section 5(1)): 3–10 years imprisonment, minimum ₹1 lakh fine.

   • Custodial Death (Section 5(2)): Life imprisonment and fine.

   • Abetment/Conspiracy (Section 7): Same punishment as primary offender.

4. Compensation (Section 6):

   • Mandatory fine as compensation by the offender.

   • Additional government compensation considering harm, lost opportunities, and costs.

   • Dependents of the deceased entitled to compensation in custodial death cases.

5. Custodial Sexual Abuse (Section 8): 10 years to life imprisonment, plus fine; same for conspirators.

6. Victim/Witness Protection (Section 10): State governments must protect victims, complainants, and witnesses from harm.

7. Time Limit (Section 9): Complaints must be filed within two years.

However, the bill still remains a private member's bill and passage depends on government support.

Case Laws

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (MANU/SC/0307/1993)

 The Supreme Court addressed the custodial death of Suman Behera, who died from injuries sustained in police custody in Orissa, despite the State's claim that he escaped and died in a train accident. Treating the mother’s petition as a writ under Article 32, the Court found the State liable for violating Article 21 (right to life), rejecting sovereign immunity and placing the burden of proof on the State. The Court awarded ₹1,50,000 to Nilabati and ₹10,000 to the Legal Aid Committee as a constitutional remedy and ordered criminal proceedings against the responsible officers. This landmark judgment established monetary compensation as a remedy for custodial deaths, reinforced State accountability, and set a precedent for constitutional courts to ensure justice and deter custodial violence.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (MANU/SC/0157/1997)

The Supreme Court, responding to a 1986 public-interest petition by D.K. Basu, highlighting custodial deaths, issued landmark guidelines to curb police misconduct, addressing violations of Articles 21 and 22. The Court declared custodial torture unconstitutional, upheld detainees’ rights, and mandated eleven safeguards, including name-tags for police, Arrest Memos, prompt family notification, medical exams, and lawyer access. Non-compliance invites penalties, and the State is liable for compensation. Codified into the CrPC in 2008, these guidelines ensure police accountability, presume State liability for custodial deaths, and remain a cornerstone for protecting fundamental rights. 

Hansura Bai and Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.(MANU/SC/0719/2025)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the appeal by Hansura Bai and others against the State of Madhya Pradesh, concerning the custodial death of Deva Pardhi and the detention of witness Gangaram Pardhi. The court found that the local police's involvement in the investigation compromised its credibility, warranting a transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ensure a fair and transparent process. The court directed the CBI to arrest the responsible police officials within a month and complete the investigation within 90 days. Additionally, the court allowed Gangaram Pardhi to seek bail from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing the need for his protection under the witness protection scheme. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.

Shakila v. State

“"i. Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus of other appropriate order directing a judicial inquiry into the death of the Petitioner‟s son, and grant her appropriate compensation.”

Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar awarded ₹3 lakh compensation for a custodial death in Tihar Jail, stating: "This Court is of the firm opinion that it is the bounden duty of the State to ensure the safety of persons who are in its custody". The Court held the State "vicariously responsible" for unnatural deaths in custody.

Framework Suggestion 

In India the police in order to get the confession from the accused tortured them with the 3rd degree and this often results in death and hurt to the accused, this is against the principle of natural justice and it also hampers the fair trial to the accused, along with it also violates Article 21 of Indian Constitution. On the contrary, apart from above-mentioned framework, India has no proper legal framework for the custodial torture which often results in death or serious injuries to the accused. To curb the practice the government shall pass THE PREVENTION OF CUSTODIAL TORTURE BILL, 2023, then there will be so difficult for the police to escape the liability.

Conclusion

India’s legal framework, including BNSS 2023, Article 21, and judgments like D.K. Basu (1997) and Nilabati Behera (1993), provides safeguards against custodial deaths through magisterial inquiries, medical exams, and judicial oversight. The Prevention of Custodial Torture Bill, 2023, proposes stronger accountability by defining torture, shifting the burden of proof to public servants, mandating life imprisonment for custodial deaths, and ensuring compensation and victim protection. As a private member’s bill, its passage is uncertain. Cases like Hansura Bai (2025) and Shakila underscore ongoing issues, with courts ordering investigations and compensation. Without a comprehensive law, police often evade accountability. Passing the 2023 Bill is essential to curb custodial torture, uphold justice, and protect Article 21’s right to life and fair trial.

References

1. Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023

2. Article 21 of Indian Constitution

3. The Prevention of Custodial Torture Bill 2023

4. NHRC Guidelines on Custodial Death

DISCLAIMER- This article has been submitted by Priyanshu Dhoke, trainee under the LLL Legal Training Program. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author.