Torture in Police Custody: Challenge in India’s Justice System

Syllabus: GS2/Governance

Context

• A recent report by Common Cause and the Lokniti Programme highlights the prevalence of police violence, revealing systemic issues that perpetuate custodial torture.
  • It surveyed 8,276 police personnel across 17 states and Union Territories, revealing systemic issues in law enforcement.

About Custodial Torture

• Torture, as defined by the UN Convention (1984), is the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain on a person.
  • It is used to force confessions, punish, intimidate, or discriminate, and is carried out or approved by officials in positions of authority.
• Custodial Torture is governed by legal provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
  • It defines the framework for detaining individuals during investigations while balancing individual liberty and effective law enforcement.

Key Provisions Under BNSS

• Timeframe of Police Custody (Section 187(2) of BNSS): Police custody can now extend up to 15 days, but not necessarily continuous.
• Judicial Safeguards: Police must still present the accused before a magistrate.
  • A magistrate must approve police custody beyond 24 hours of arrest, ensuring legal safeguards against arbitrary detention.
• Extension of Detention Beyond 15 Days: Similar to CrPC, Magisterial (Judicial) custody beyond 15 days can continue up to:
  • 60 days for offences punishable up to 10 years.
  • 90 days for offences punishable by death/life/≥10 years.
  • But police custody remains capped at 15 days, albeit flexibly spaced under BNSS.

Why Police Torture Persists in India?

• Legal Vacuum on Torture: India has signed but not ratified the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), 1997 meaning it is not legally bound to implement its provisions.
  • The Prevention of Torture Bill (2010) lapsed in Parliament, and subsequent efforts to introduce legislation have been shelved or diluted.
• Procedural Flaws and Delays: Supreme Court of India, in K Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997) Case, laid down crucial guidelines to prevent custodial abuse.
  • However, Courts often rely on magisterial inquiries — procedures riddled with procedural flaws and delays.
• Institutional Incentives: Confessions extracted through violence are still treated as evidence, despite being inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Weak Accountability: Investigations into custodial deaths are typically conducted by the same department involved.
  • Even where judicial inquiries are initiated, they are often slow, opaque, and inconclusive.
• Political Interference: Policing in India is often influenced by political pressures, which weakens impartial action and shields errant officers.

Key Findings of Report

• Justified Use of Police Force: 55% of police personnel believe ‘tough methods’ are necessary to instill fear in the public.
  • 30% justify third-degree torture in serious cases, while 9% approve of it even for petty offenses.
• Mob Violence and Encounters: 25% of police personnel support mob violence in cases like sexual harassment and child lifting.
  • 22% believe encounter killings are better than legal trials, though 74% support legal procedures for dangerous criminals.
• Arrest Procedures: 41% claim procedures are always followed, while 24% admit they are rarely or never adhered to.
  • Kerala reports the highest compliance (94%), while Jharkhand reports the lowest (8%).
• Victim Demographics: Victims of police torture predominantly belong to marginalized groups, including Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, and slum dwellers.
• Judicial and Medical Apathy: Magistrates often act as ‘silent spectators’ and medical examinations are conducted by doctors without forensic expertise.
• Custodial Deaths and Accountability: Discrepancies in official figures highlight the underreporting of custodial deaths, with numbers ranging from 76 (NCRB) to 111 (NCAT) cases in 2020.
  • Between 2018 and 2022, zero convictions were recorded for custodial deaths, raising concerns about impunity.

Recommendations for Reform

• Enact Comprehensive Anti-Torture Legislation: India must pass a dedicated law against custodial torture with strict provisions for accountability, time-bound investigations, and victim compensation.
• Strengthen Police Training: 79% of police personnel support human rights training.
• Independent Oversight Mechanisms: Establish monitoring bodies to ensure transparency and accountability.
  • 69th Report (1977) of Law Commission of India: It proposed introducing Section 26A in the Indian Evidence Act to make confessions before senior police officers admissible.
  • 273rd Report of Law Commission of India recommended an anti-torture law, affirming that India’s existing legal safeguards are insufficient.
  • Malimath Committee: It suggested that confessions made before a senior police officer of the rank of Superintendent or above should be admissible in evidence with safeguards to prevent coercion.
• Mandatory Use of Technology: CCTV coverage in interrogation rooms, digital records of questioning, and body cameras must become the norm.
• Capacity Building & Sensitization: Police training must emphasize human rights, ethical investigation techniques, and the psychological impacts of torture.
• Judicial Reforms: Fast-track courts for custodial crimes, along with stringent penalties for complicit officials, are essential.

Conclusion

• Custodial torture remains a deep-rooted issue in India’s justice system, demanding urgent legal and institutional reforms. 
• By ratifying the UNCAT, enforcing stricter accountability measures, and transforming policing culture, India can move toward a more humane and rights-based approach to law enforcement.

Source: IE