N4S:
This article explores one of the most uncomfortable realities of India’s law enforcement system — the silent, systemic culture of custodial torture. UPSC has a habit of testing such issues in layered, thought-provoking ways. For example, the 2018 GS2 question asked how policy contradictions lead to poor environmental protection. In the same way, UPSC can frame questions around custodial torture by tying it to larger ideas — human rights, police reforms, federalism, or even international relations. It won’t ask: “What is custodial torture?” It will ask: “Why hasn’t India enacted an anti-torture law despite being a democracy?” This is where many aspirants falter. They memorize provisions and judgments but forget to ask the “why,” “how,” and “what next.”This article fixes that problem. It doesn’t just list laws (like the D.K. Basu guidelines or IPC Sections 330/331), but also explains why these laws don’t work in practice. It explains why constables and IPS officers view violence so differently (see: “Factors of Divergence”) and how these differences shape police behavior.The most special feature of this article? It doesn’t just inform. It provokes. It asks tough questions—like, is custodial torture still happening because the public silently supports it in the name of “quick justice”? Or because politicians don’t want to lose control over the police?
This article examines the persistent issue of custodial torture in India’s policing system—a topic often overlooked but highly relevant for UPSC. The exam rarely asks direct questions like “What is custodial torture?” Instead, it connects such issues to broader themes like human rights, police reforms, or international obligations. For example, it may ask, “Why has India not passed an anti-torture law despite being a democracy?”
The article goes beyond listing laws such as the D.K. Basu guidelines or IPC Sections 330 and 331. It explains why these laws often fail in practice and how views on violence differ across police ranks. It also encourages reflection on whether torture persists due to public approval or political control over the police.
PYQ ANCHORING
- GS 2: Policy contradictions among various competing sectors and stakeholders have resulted in inadequate ‘protection and prevention of degradation’ to environment. Comment with relevant illustration. [2018]
MICROTHEME: Structural reforms and Actions
In India, custodial violence isn’t just a problem of a few rogue officers — it’s a culture silently accepted and justified within the police force itself. A Lokniti-CSDS study shows a disturbing trend: 63% of police personnel believe it’s acceptable to use violence against suspects of serious crimes. Support for torture is alarmingly high even in cases like rape, murder, and terrorism. Shockingly, even petty crime investigations see a large number justifying verbal threats and physical abuse.
On the ground, threats and light physical force are used often; third-degree torture methods, while less frequent, are still worryingly present. Most police personnel are reluctant to report torture — only 39% think it should always be mandatory. Senior officers are even less supportive of reporting.
Legal protection for juniors could encourage some to report violence, but the deeper problem is cultural: brutality is seen as “necessary.” Unless mindsets change, legal reforms alone won’t end custodial violence in India.
Factors of Divergence in attitudes of Constables and IPS Officers /*SMASH MAINS
While both constables and IPS officers serve within the same policing system, their attitudes toward the use of violence are shaped by vastly different educational, social, and professional realities. This table outlines six key factors that explain the sharp divergence in their mindsets.
| Factor | Brief Reason | Example |
| Education | IPS officers are exposed to constitutional values; constables have limited legal literacy. | IPS officers study human rights; constables often rely on informal methods. |
| Training | IPS training stresses ethics and modern policing; constables focus on physical law enforcement. | IPS officers practice evidence-based investigation; constables may use intimidation. |
| Work Pressure | Constables face direct pressure for quick results; IPS officers supervise from a distance. | A constable might beat suspects under pressure; an IPS officer manages reporting. |
| Social Background | Constables often come from violence-normalized settings; IPS officers are urban, rights-aware. | Rural constables see force as normal; IPS officers prioritize procedure. |
| Career Incentives | IPS careers demand clean records; constabulary promotions are loyalty-based. | IPS officers risk media scrutiny; constables may be praised internally for ‘toughness.’ |
| Accountability | IPS officers are directly accountable to courts, NHRC, media; constables are insulated. | IPS officers face legal summons; constables stay protected within the system. |
Impact of Custodial Torture on India’s International Relations
India, a prominent democratic nation, faces significant international scrutiny due to reports of custodial torture, a grave violation of human rights. These incidents not only tarnish its global image but also hinder diplomatic relations and affect its credibility in various global forums. Custodial torture impacts India on the international stage in the following ways:
1. Damage to India’s Human Rights Image
- Example: UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) reviews have consistently flagged custodial deaths in India, impacting India’s credibility in global forums.
- Impact: Weakens India’s ability to project itself as a leader of democratic and humanitarian values.
2. Obstacles in Bilateral Extradition Treaties
- Example: UK courts (e.g., Vijay Mallya case, 2020) have cited concerns over prison conditions and potential mistreatment while considering extraditions to India.
- Impact: Countries hesitate to extradite accused persons, fearing violations of human rights in Indian custody.
3. Criticism in UN and Other Multilateral Bodies
- Example: During India’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the UNHRC in 2017, several countries recommended India to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture.
- Impact: Multilateral scrutiny limits India’s diplomatic leverage on human rights issues.
4. Negative Influence on Trade and Investment Climate
- Example: EU-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations have seen human rights concerns, including custodial torture, being raised by European parliamentarians.
- Impact: Persistent human rights criticisms can deter ethical investment and complicate trade agreements.
5. Weakening of India’s Moral Standing in International Advocacy
- Example: India’s call for Palestinian rights or criticisms of racial discrimination abroad lose weight when its own custodial abuses are highlighted in response.
- Impact: Diminishes India’s moral authority to speak on international justice issues.
6. Pressure from International NGOs and Watchdogs
- Example: Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch regularly release critical reports on custodial torture in India (e.g., Amnesty’s 2020 report on UP police encounters).
- Impact: International campaigns can shame India diplomatically, influence foreign media narratives, and increase global pressure.
The issue of custodial torture severely undermines India’s global standing, from its human rights credibility to its diplomatic relations and trade negotiations. As international pressure mounts, addressing this issue becomes crucial for India to restore its moral authority and strengthen its position in global affairs.
Protective Mechanisms Available Against Custodial Torture in India// DOMINATE PRELIMS
India has developed several constitutional, judicial, and institutional safeguards to protect individuals from custodial torture. The key protective mechanisms are:
1. Constitutional Safeguards
- Article 21: Guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, interpreted to include protection against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.
- Article 22: Provides procedural safeguards for arrest and detention, such as the right to be informed of grounds of arrest and the right to consult a legal practitioner.
- Article 20(3): Protects against self-incrimination during investigations and custodial interrogations.
2. Judicial Safeguards
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)➔ Issued 11 mandatory guidelines to be followed during arrest and detention, including:
- Arrest memo signed by witness.
- Information to relatives/friends.
- Medical examination every 48 hours.
- Right to consult a lawyer during interrogation. ➔ Incorporated into CrPC (Sections 41B–41D).
- Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020)➔ Directed installation of CCTV cameras with audio recording in all police stations and investigation agencies to ensure transparency.
- Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)➔ Ordered creation of Police Complaints Authorities in every state for independent investigation into police misconduct.
3. Statutory Safeguards
- Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):
- Section 167: Requires production of the arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours.
- Section 176: Mandates magisterial inquiry into cases of custodial deaths.
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
- Section 25: Confessions made to a police officer are not admissible as evidence.
- Section 26: Confession must be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate to be admissible.
- Indian Penal Code (IPC):
- Sections 330 & 331: Penalize voluntarily causing hurt/extorting confession.
- Section 302: Allows police officers to be prosecuted for custodial deaths.
- Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: ➔ Provides free legal aid to the underprivileged, ensuring access to lawyers during detention.
4. Institutional Safeguards
- National Human Rights Commission (NHRC):
➔ Monitors custodial deaths and custodial violence cases; mandates reporting of any such incidents within 24 hours. - State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs):
➔ Perform similar roles at the state level. - Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs):
➔ Set up in states following the Prakash Singh judgment for independent redressal of police misconduct complaints. - Oversight Committees (as per Paramvir Singh Case):
➔ Monitor the functioning and maintenance of CCTVs in police stations.
5. International Commitments
- India signed the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997 but has yet to ratify it.
- Law Commission (2017) and various expert bodies have recommended enacting a specific anti-torture law, but it is still pending.
Protection against custodial torture in India rests on constitutional rights, detailed judicial guidelines, statutory laws, institutional watchdogs, and international moral obligations. However, enforcement and systemic reform remain key challenges.
Custodial Torture = A legal impossibility or just political unwillingness ?
Custodial torture remains a brutal reality in India, despite constitutional protections. The real question is not whether it can be legally prevented — it’s whether there’s genuine political will to do so. While political unwillingness is at the core, some deeper systemic reasons also add complexity.
I. Political Unwillingness is the Core Reason
| Point | Explanation | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Repeated Failure to Enact Law | Political push has been missing even when the courts demanded action. | The Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010 passed Lok Sabha but lapsed in Rajya Sabha without serious effort to revive it. |
| 2. Ignoring International Obligations | Signing global treaties without ratification shows lack of seriousness. | India signed the UN Convention Against Torture in 1997, but hasn’t ratified it for over 25 years. |
| 3. Lack of Pressure from Citizens | Public outrage is temporary and politically weak. | After the 2020 Jayaraj-Bennix deaths, there was anger but no lasting legislative change. |
| 4. Police Used as Political Tool | Strong anti-torture laws are seen as reducing political control over police. | State governments resist laws that would limit their ability to “manage” police forces for political ends. |
| 5. Ignoring Judicial Appeals | Even repeated Supreme Court nudges haven’t moved governments. | Cases like D.K. Basu (1997) and Paramvir Singh Saini (2020) urged laws against torture, but Parliament hasn’t acted. |
| 6. Fear of Police Resistance | Politicians fear upsetting police and paramilitary forces. | After the Law Commission’s 2017 push for anti-torture laws, internal resistance from police slowed political response. |
II. But It’s Not Just Political Unwillingness
| Point | Explanation | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Fear of Law Misuse | Governments fear fake cases will hamper police work, especially in insurgency areas. | In Naxal-hit zones, stronger laws are seen as a threat to policing. |
| 2. Federal Structure Complications | Police is a State Subject — Centre making a law could spark Centre-State tensions. | States may oppose any central anti-torture law citing constitutional rights. |
| 3. Existing Legal Provisions | Some argue new laws aren’t needed, only better enforcement of current ones. | IPC Sections 330/331 already criminalize torture; Section 302 applies for custodial deaths. |
| 4. Weak Civil Society Pressure | No large public movement like RTI or Lokpal has built up around this issue. | Without mass pressure, governments find little incentive to act. |
| 5. Administrative Gaps | Practical hurdles like lack of funds and staff make implementation difficult. | Even court-ordered CCTV installation in police stations remains patchy. |
| 6. Colonial-Era Policing Legacy | Harsh policing methods are culturally normalized from British rule days. | Public and political tolerance for “third degree” tactics delays reforms. |
Custodial torture survives not because India lacks the legal imagination to stop it, but because political systems benefit from the status quo. Unless there’s sustained pressure — from courts, civil society, and voters — real change will remain a distant hope.
Way Forward
- Standalone Anti-Torture Law
➔ Enact a comprehensive Anti-Torture Act with clear definitions, victim compensation, independent investigation, and compliance with UNCAT. - Mandatory Video Recording of Interrogations
➔ Ensure complete audio-visual recording of all custodial interrogations, with recordings preserved for a minimum of 5 years and accessible to courts. - Independent Investigation Units
➔ Set up special investigation teams under Human Rights Commissions, separate from the regular police chain of command, for custodial torture cases. - Reverse Burden of Proof
➔ Shift burden onto police in cases of custodial deaths/injuries — officers must prove innocence unless otherwise established. - Stronger Judicial Oversight
➔ Mandatory monthly inspections of police lockups by Judicial Magistrates, and judicial inquiry (not executive) in all custodial death cases. - Protection for Whistleblowers and Victims
➔ Extend whistleblower protections to police and prison staff reporting torture; allow easy, time-bound access to CCTV footage for victims.
#BACK2BASICS: Custodial Torture in India: An Enduring Challenge
The Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR) 2024, released by Common Cause and Lokniti-CSDS, highlights systemic issues of custodial violence, torture, and lack of accountability, based on interactions with 8,276 police personnel across 17 states and Union Territories.
Understanding Torture
Under the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT, 1984), torture involves the intentional infliction of severe pain by public officials. India signed UNCAT in 1997 but has not ratified it, making compliance non-binding.
Key Findings
- Tough Policing: 55% of police personnel endorse “tough methods”; ambiguity exists between legitimate force and torture.
- Mob Justice & Encounters: 25% justify mob violence (e.g., child-lifting cases); 22% support encounter killings over trials.
- Arrest Compliance: Only 41% claim procedures are “always” followed; Kerala highest at 94%.
- Third-Degree Methods: 30% justify torture for serious crimes; 9% even for petty offenses. Victims are mainly Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, and slum dwellers.
- Custodial Deaths: NCRB (76), NHRC (70), NCAT (111) in 2020; yet zero convictions (2018–22).
- Judicial & Medical Apathy: Magistrates often passive; medical exams sometimes done by eye specialists (example: Maharashtra case cited by civil society groups).
Structural Causes
- Colonial Legacy of Policing: Use of force to maintain control (Indian Police Act, 1861 framework).
- Lack of Accountability: Rare convictions in custodial deaths (zero convictions in 4 years despite multiple deaths).
- Political and Bureaucratic Pressure: Quick results prioritized over legal processes (e.g., pressure during high-profile crimes).
- Inadequate Training and Legal Literacy: Police unaware of rights-based policing (e.g., third-degree practices justified in petty theft cases).
- Public Tolerance of Violence: Support for encounters and mob violence evident in surveys (22% support encounters even for serious offenders).
- Opaque Detention Practices: Lack of transparency in arrest and detention (e.g., minimal magistrate interaction with accused).
Custodial torture is a global problem: Guantanamo Bay abuses (US), Abu Ghraib scandal (Iraq), routine torture reports (Russia, China, Pakistan).
Custodial torture persists due to deep-rooted structural flaws. While the SPIR 2024 report shows growing support for human rights training, real change demands urgent steps: enacting anti-torture legislation, ratifying UNCAT, strengthening accountability, and reforming police and judicial practices.
SMASH MAINS MOCK DROP
Custodial torture remains a serious human rights concern in India despite legal safeguards. Analyze the causes behind its persistence and suggest effective measures to eliminate it.
