SCHOOL OF LAW

SANDIP UNIVERSITY, NASHIK

DISSERTATION

ON

STUDY ON REFORMING CUSTODIAL JUSTICE IN INDIA:

THE ROLE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

EXAMINATION OF MASTER OF LAW IN THE ACEDEMIC

SESSION 2024-25

Submitted by
Sandesh Sanjivkumar Jagtap
LL.M in Criminal Law
PRN NO: 230104031026

Supervisor
Dr. Sharvari Vaidya
Dean – School of Law

I
 ACKNOWLEGEMENT

I feel immense pleasure to avail this golden opportunity to expressing my deepest

sense of gratitude and indebtedness to Mrs. Dr. Sharvari Vaidya Dean of School of Law,

Sandip University, Nashik for their valuable guidance and constant motivation through the

completion of this synopsis work.

Sandesh Sanjivkumar Jagtap

LL.M (IV Sem)
(Criminal Law)

II
 DECLARATION

I declare that this written submission represents my ideas in my own words and

where others' ideas or words have been included, I have adequately cited and referenced

the original sources. I also declare that I have adhered to all principles of academic

honesty and integrity and have not misrepresented or fabricated or falsified any

idea/data/fact/source in my submission. I understand that any violation of the above will

be cause for disciplinary action by the University and can also evoke penal action from

the sources which have thus not been properly cited or from whom proper permission

has not been taken when needed.

Sandesh Sanjivkumar Jagtap

LL.M in Criminal Law
PRN NO: 230104031026

Date: 26-04-2025
Place: Nashik

III
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Sandesh Sanjivkumar Jagtap is a student of LL.M (IV Sem)

(Criminal Law), Sandip University, Nashik and has worked under my supervision and

guidance for the entitled “Study On Reforming Custodial Justice In India: The Role Of

Accountability And Transparency In Law Enforcement”, This Dissertation work is

submitted in the fulfillment of LL.M degree. This work is comprehensively complete and

sufficient to the standards of academic requirements.

Date: 23-04-2025 Dr. Sharvari Vadiya

Place: Nashik Supervisor & Dean of School of Law

IV
 APPROVAL SHEET

This Synopsis report entitled “Study On Reforming Custodial Justice In India: The Role

Of Accountability And Transparency In Law Enforcement” by Sandesh Sanjivkumar

Jagtap is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the LL.M in Criminal Law.

Dr Sharvari Vaidya
COORDINATOR & DEAN
LL.M DEPARTMENT SCHOOL OF LAW

Date:
Place: Nashik

V
 INDEX

Chapter Content in Chapter Page

No. No.
Title Page I
Acknowledgment II
Declaration III
Certificate IV
Approval Sheet V
Index VI
Abbreviation VIII
List of Case IX
1 INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER I – HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 9
2.1 Evolution of Custodial Justice in Colonial India 10
2
2.2 Post-Independence Developments 15
2.3 Major Commissions and Committees on Police Reforms) 19
3 CHAPTER II – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 25
3.1 Title of Study 26
3.2 Rationale of Study 26
3.3 Objectives 27
3.4 Hypothesis 28
3.5 Review of Literature 28
3.6 Nature of Study 30
3.7 Method of Data Collection 31
3.8 Time Schedule 31
4 CHAPTER III: LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING 32
CUSTODIAL JUSTICE
4.1 Constitutional Safeguards 33
4.2 Statutory Provisions 36
4.3 Supreme Court Guidelines and Landmark Judgments 44
4.4 International Human Rights Standards and India's Obligations 50
5 CHAPTER IV: CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES IN 56
CUSTODIAL JUSTICE
5.1 Analysis of Custodial Violence and Deaths Statistics 57
5.2 Systemic Issues in Law Enforcement Practices 60
5.3 Barriers to Accountability 65
5.4 Impact on Vulnerable Populations 72
6 CHAPTER V: TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 78
MECHANISMS
6.1 Existing Oversight Bodies 79
6.2 Judicial Supervision and Intervention 85

VI
 6.3 Role of Media and Civil Society Organizations 90
6.4 Comparative Analysis of International Best Practices 95
7 CHAPTER VI: TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS AND 102
MODERNIZATION
7.1 Digital Monitoring Systems 103
7.2 Forensic Modernization 108
7.3 Training and Capacity Building 112
7.4 Psychological Aspects of Policing 119
8 CHAPTER VIII: CHALLENGES, STRATEGIES, 126
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Challenges to Reform Implementation 127
8.2 Conclusion and Recommendations 131
8.3 Bibliography 139

VII
 ABBREVIATIONS

BPRD - Bureau of Police Research and Development

CCTNS - Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems

CID - Crime Investigation Department

CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure

CHRI - Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

ICCPR - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

IPC - Indian Penal Code

MISA - Maintenance of Internal Security Act

NCRB - National Crime Records Bureau

NHRC - National Human Rights Commission

NPC - National Police Commission

PCA - Police Complaints Authority

PIL - Public Interest Litigation

PUCL - People's Union for Civil Liberties

RTI - Right to Information

SHRC - State Human Rights Commission

SC - Supreme Court

UDHR - Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UNCAT - United Nations Convention Against Torture

VIII
 LIST OF CASES

1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416

2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746

3. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983) 2 SCC 96

4. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1

5. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

6. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

7. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141

8. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27

9. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608

10. Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) SCC OnLine SC 983

IX
INTRODUCTION

1
1.1 Background of the Study

The intersection of state power and individual rights finds its most critical testing

ground in spaces of custody, where citizens are deprived of liberty and placed under the

control of law enforcement authorities. In India, a constitutional democracy with a

colonial past, custodial justice presents a complex tapestry of legal guarantees,

institutional practices, and cultural norms that often operate in contradiction. Despite

seven decades of constitutional governance committed to fundamental rights, custodial

violence and deaths continue to be reported with alarming regularity, raising profound

questions about accountability and transparency within the criminal justice system.

India's experience with custodial justice is deeply influenced by its historical trajectory.

The police system established during British colonial rule was designed primarily as an

instrument of control rather than service, with the Police Act of 1861 creating a force

that prioritized maintenance of order over protection of rights. This legacy has proven

difficult to dismantle, surviving constitutional transformation and multiple reform

attempts. The post-independence era has witnessed significant legal and institutional

developments aimed at humanizing custody practices – from constitutional guarantees

under Articles 20, 21, and 22 to landmark Supreme Court judgments like D.K. Basu v.

State of West Bengal and statutory amendments strengthening procedural safeguards.

Yet, the gap between normative frameworks and ground realities remains substantial.

Official statistics paint a troubling picture. According to the National Crime Records

Bureau (NCRB), 1,888 cases of death in police custody were reported between 2010

and 2020, averaging approximately 170 deaths annually. The National Human Rights

Commission (NHRC) registered 2,152 cases of custodial deaths in 2019-2020 alone,

with many instances likely going unreported. Beyond these statistics lie narratives of

2
torture, mistreatment, and denial of dignity that rarely enter official records. The

phenomenon affects vulnerable populations disproportionately, with marginalized

communities, religious minorities, and economically disadvantaged groups facing

heightened risks of custodial abuse.

The persistence of custodial violence despite robust constitutional and legal safeguards

points to deeper systemic issues that transcend legal frameworks. These include

institutional cultures that normalize coercive practices, inadequate training and

resources, political interference in police functioning, and weak accountability

mechanisms. India remains one of the few major democracies that has signed but not

ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), reflecting

ambivalence toward international standards on custody practices.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Despite India's constitutional commitment to human dignity and personal liberty,

custodial spaces remain sites of significant rights violations. The persistence of

custodial violence represents a fundamental contradiction in a democratic system

governed by rule of law, raising critical questions about the efficacy of existing legal

frameworks and institutional arrangements. This research addresses this contradiction

by examining the structural, procedural, and cultural factors that sustain custodial

abuses and impede accountability.

The central problem this study investigates is the disconnect between India's robust

legal protections against custodial violence and the continuing reality of such abuses.

This disconnect manifests in multiple dimensions: first, as a gap between constitutional

guarantees and statutory provisions on one hand and their implementation on the other;

second, as a tension between judicial pronouncements establishing rights-protective

3
standards and the resistant institutional cultures within law enforcement; and third, as a

failure of oversight mechanisms to effectively detect, deter, and remedy violations.

Several interrelated questions emerge from this central problem:

1. What systemic factors enable custodial violence to persist despite legal

prohibitions?

2. How effective are existing accountability mechanisms in preventing and

addressing custodial abuses?

3. What are the barriers to transparency in custody management, and how can they
be overcome?

4. To what extent do institutional cultures within law enforcement normalize or

resist abusive practices?

5. How can technology and procedural innovations enhance accountability in

custodial settings?

6. What lessons can be drawn from comparative experiences to strengthen India's

custodial justice system?

The problem is compounded by significant data limitations that obscure the true extent

of custodial violence. Official statistics capture only reported deaths in custody,

excluding non-fatal abuses and unregistered detentions. The investigation of such

deaths frequently lacks independence, with police departments conducting inquiries

into their own conduct.

1.3 Significance of the Study

This research holds significance on multiple levels – theoretical, practical, and societal.

At a theoretical level, it contributes to scholarly understanding of the relationship

between legal norms and institutional practices in rights protection, particularly in post-

colonial contexts where democratic aspirations coexist with authoritarian legacies. By

4
examining how accountability and transparency mechanisms function in custodial

settings, the study advances conceptual frameworks for analyzing state power in spaces

characterized by information asymmetry and power imbalances.

From a practical perspective, this research offers valuable insights for policy

formulation and institutional reform. By identifying specific deficiencies in existing

accountability structures and evaluating potential interventions, it provides evidence-

based recommendations for lawmakers, police administrators, judicial officers, and

human rights institutions. These recommendations address both immediate measures to

prevent custodial abuses and longer-term reforms to transform institutional cultures and

practices.

For legal practitioners, including judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, this study

provides a comprehensive analysis of the evolving jurisprudence on custodial justice,

highlighting interpretive approaches that strengthen rights protection. It examines

procedural innovations that have proven effective in specific contexts and explores how

these might be systematized across jurisdictions.

The societal significance extends to potential impact on public trust in law enforcement

and the broader criminal justice system. Custodial violence not only violates the rights

of immediate victims but also undermines community confidence in state institutions,

particularly among marginalized populations who experience disproportionate police

contact.

Additionally, this study addresses a critical gap in existing literature. While substantial

scholarship exists on police reforms in India, relatively limited attention has been paid

to the specific issue of custodial justice and the functioning of accountability

mechanisms in detention settings. This research synthesizes legal, institutional, and

5
empirical perspectives to provide a comprehensive analysis of this neglected but

essential aspect of criminal justice administration.

1.4 Scope and Limitations

This study focuses specifically on custodial justice in the context of police custody

rather than judicial custody or detention under special security legislation. While

acknowledging that accountability concerns exist across all forms of state detention,

police custody represents a particularly critical phase where detainees face heightened

vulnerability due to investigative pressures, limited judicial oversight, and restricted

access to legal counsel. The temporal scope encompasses developments from India's

independence to the present, with particular emphasis on the period following the

Supreme Court's landmark judgment in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997).

Geographically, this study adopts a national perspective while recognizing significant

regional variations in police practices and accountability structures across Indian states.

It includes targeted comparative analysis of selected states representing diverse models

of police organization and oversight mechanisms. This approach enables identification

of both common structural challenges and promising reform initiatives that have

emerged in specific jurisdictions.

The research examines accountability and transparency across multiple dimensions:

legal (constitutional provisions, statutes, and judicial pronouncements), institutional

(oversight bodies, disciplinary mechanisms, and complaint systems), procedural

(documentation requirements, medical examinations, and visitation rights),

technological (CCTV surveillance, body cameras, and digital records), and cultural

(training, professional ethics, and institutional norms).

6
Several limitations constrain this research. First, comprehensive empirical data on

custodial practices remains scarce, with official statistics capturing only reported

incidents rather than the full spectrum of abuses. This study addresses this limitation by

triangulating multiple data sources, including NCRB reports, NHRC complaints,

judicial proceedings, media accounts, and NGO documentation.

Second, direct observation of police custodial practices presents significant

methodological challenges due to restricted access and ethical considerations. The

research relies instead on secondary sources, supplemented by interviews with

stakeholders including retired police officials, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys,

and civil society representatives.

Third, the study recognizes that reform initiatives may have different trajectories across

India's diverse states, making generalized prescriptions problematic. It addresses this

limitation by identifying core principles and mechanisms that can be adapted to varied

administrative contexts rather than proposing one-size-fits-all solutions.

1.5 Structure of the Dissertation

This dissertation is organized into eight chapters that progressively develop its analysis

of accountability and transparency in India's custodial justice system.

Chapter I introduces the research problem, establishing its significance and delimiting

its scope. It situates the study within broader scholarly conversations about police

accountability and rights protection in democratic systems.

Chapter II traces the historical evolution of custodial justice in India, from colonial

origins through post-independence developments. It examines how colonial legacies

have shaped institutional structures and practices, analyzes constitutional and legal

7
transformations, and reviews the recommendations of major commissions and

committees on police reforms.

Chapter III details the research methodology employed, including research questions,

objectives, hypotheses, and data collection methods. It explains the mixed-methods

approach combining doctrinal research, statistical analysis, case studies, and

stakeholder interviews.

Chapter IV analyzes the legal framework governing custodial justice, examining

constitutional safeguards, statutory provisions, landmark judicial decisions, and India's

engagement with international human rights standards.

Chapter V investigates contemporary challenges in custodial justice, presenting

statistical evidence on custodial violence and analyzing systemic issues in law

enforcement practices. It examines barriers to accountability across legal, institutional,

and cultural dimensions, with particular attention to impacts on vulnerable populations.

Chapter VI evaluates existing transparency and accountability mechanisms, including

oversight bodies, judicial interventions, and civil society initiatives. It presents

comparative analysis of international best practices with potential relevance for India.

Chapter VII explores technological solutions and modernization efforts that could

enhance accountability in custodial settings. It examines digital monitoring systems,

forensic modernization, and training innovations.

Chapter VIII synthesizes the research findings and presents comprehensive

recommendations for reform. It proposes specific legislative amendments, institutional

restructuring, and implementation strategies, concluding with identification of areas

requiring further research.

8
CHAPTER I – HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

9
CHAPTER II: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Evolution of Custodial Justice in Colonial India

2.1.1 British Colonial Police System

The foundations of India's modern police system were laid during British colonial rule,

establishing institutional structures and practices that continue to influence

contemporary law enforcement. Prior to British colonization, policing in the Indian

subcontinent was predominantly community-based, with village panchayats (councils

of elders) and local watchmen (chowkidars) maintaining order according to customary

laws. This decentralized system emphasized community resolution of disputes rather

than punitive enforcement.

The British East India Company's territorial expansion necessitated formal policing

structures to consolidate colonial control. In Bengal, Lord Cornwallis introduced the

Darogah system in 1792, establishing a network of thanas (police stations) under district

magistrates who combined executive, judicial, and police functions. This arrangement

placed police under direct control of revenue officials, reflecting the economic priorities

of colonial governance.

The defining characteristic of colonial policing was its dual function: maintaining

general order and suppressing political resistance to British rule. This created a

structural tension within the police force that persists in post-colonial India, where law

enforcement continues to balance service functions with political control imperatives.

As historian David Arnold noted, the colonial police represented "the cutting edge of

colonial authority," functioning as "the most visible symbol of British rule."

The 1857 Revolt (characterized by the British as the "Sepoy Mutiny") significantly

influenced colonial policing approaches. The perceived failure of existing arrangements

10
during this crisis prompted a comprehensive review, culminating in the Police

Commission of 1860 and the subsequent Police Act of 1861.

The police structure established under this Act was hierarchical and centralized, with

an Inspector General heading the police in each province, Superintendents managing

district-level operations, and a system of Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors, and constables at

lower levels. While British domestic policing incorporated elements of civilian

oversight and operational independence from direct government control, the colonial

police remained firmly under executive authority, answerable to the provincial

government through district magistrates rather than to local communities or

independent bodies.

This subordination to executive authority had profound implications for custodial

practices. The absence of meaningful external oversight created conditions where abuse

of detainees could occur with limited accountability. Colonial police were evaluated

primarily on their effectiveness in maintaining order and protecting colonial interests

rather than on their adherence to procedural protections for those in custody.

Colonial police recruitment and training further reinforced problematic approaches to

custody. The administration deliberately recruited from "martial races" and

communities perceived as loyal to British interests, creating police forces with limited

social legitimacy. Training emphasized drill, discipline, and the use of force rather than

investigation techniques or rights-based approaches to detention.

The material conditions of colonial policing also shaped custodial practices. Police

stations were poorly resourced, with inadequate facilities for detaining suspects

humanely. Low pay and difficult working conditions contributed to corruption and

11
abuse of power. Documentation systems emphasized surveillance and control rather

than accountability or transparency for those in custody.

2.1.2 Torture Commission Report of 1855

The first significant official acknowledgment of custodial abuse in colonial India came

through the Torture Commission established in 1854 by the Madras Presidency. This

Commission was formed in response to growing criticism from British missionaries

and some officials about police practices, particularly in revenue collection and

criminal investigation.

The Commission's report, published in 1855, documented widespread use of torture by

police in the Madras Presidency. It concluded unequivocally that "the practice of torture

by the native officers of the lower revenue and police establishments... for the purpose

of extorting confessions and of compelling the production of evidence, has long existed

and still exists." The report detailed specific methods employed, including suspension

by the arms, application of heavy weights, confinement in stocks, and various forms of

physical violence.

The Commission identified several structural factors contributing to custodial torture.

First, it noted the pressure on police to solve crimes quickly and produce confessions,

creating incentives for coercive interrogation. Second, it highlighted inadequate

supervision of local police by European officers, who were too few in number to

effectively oversee operations. Third, it pointed to the low pay and poor training of

constables, who resorted to corruption and violence to supplement their incomes and

meet performance expectations.

Significantly, the Commission recognized the connection between custodial abuse and

the colonial administration's emphasis on confession-based evidence rather than

12
scientific investigation. It observed that "so long as the primary object of the police

continues to be the confession of the party suspected... so long will torture be practiced."

This insight identified a systemic issue that would persist through independence into

modern India, where reliance on confessions continues to incentivize coercive

interrogation methods.

Despite its thorough documentation of abuses, the Commission's recommendations

were notably limited. It suggested modest administrative reforms rather than

fundamental restructuring of police powers or accountability mechanisms. It did not

recommend criminal prosecution of officers involved in torture, instead proposing

better supervision and training. This pattern of documenting abuse without

implementing substantive reforms would characterize numerous subsequent inquiries

into police conduct throughout colonial and post-colonial periods.

The colonial government's response to the Commission's findings was similarly

restrained. While it acknowledged the existence of torture, it attributed the problem

primarily to cultural factors rather than to structural features of the colonial police

system itself. The government implemented modest procedural reforms but maintained

the basic structure of police authority and continued to prioritize order maintenance

over rights protection.

2.1.3 Police Act of 1861

The Police Act of 1861, enacted in the aftermath of the 1857 Revolt, established the

framework for police organization that would persist through independence and

continue to influence contemporary Indian policing. The Act represented a direct

response to the perceived failure of previous policing arrangements during the uprising

13
and reflected the colonial administration's determination to establish a more effective

mechanism of control.

The Act created a uniform police organization across British India, replacing various

regional systems with a standardized structure under provincial government control. It

established the position of Inspector General of Police in each province and created a

hierarchical organization with clear lines of authority from the provincial level down to

local police stations.

From a custodial justice perspective, the Police Act of 1861 contained significant

structural flaws that facilitated abuse. First, it established police as an instrument of the

executive branch rather than as an independent institution with professional standards

and public accountability. Section 3 explicitly placed the "superintendence of the

police" under the provincial government, while Section 4 authorized the Inspector

General to "direct and regulate" the police force "in such manner...as shall seem

expedient." This subordination to executive authority meant that police functioned

primarily to serve government interests rather than to protect citizens' rights.

Second, the Act provided minimal guidance regarding custody procedures or detainee

rights, leaving these matters largely to administrative discretion. While it empowered

police to arrest suspected persons (Section 23), it included few safeguards against

arbitrary detention or mistreatment. This legislative silence on custodial practices

created a permissive environment for abuse, particularly given the Act's emphasis on

maintaining "public order" rather than ensuring individual rights.

Third, the Act established inadequate accountability mechanisms for police

misconduct. Although it included provisions for disciplining officers who "discharged

their duties in a careless or negligent manner" (Section 7), these mechanisms were

14
entirely internal to the police organization, with no independent oversight. The Act

contained no specific provisions for addressing custodial violence or holding officers

accountable for mistreating detainees.

The Police Act's deficiencies regarding custodial justice reflected broader colonial

attitudes toward governance in India. The Act prioritized efficiency, control, and cost-

effectiveness over procedural justice or rights protection. It established a police force

designed primarily to secure British interests rather than to serve local communities or

uphold individual rights.

The legacy of the Police Act of 1861 for custodial justice in India has been profound

and enduring. It established institutional structures and power relationships that

normalized custodial abuse and created barriers to accountability that persist into the

present. The Act's fundamental approach – creating a police force responsible to

executive authority rather than to the public or independent oversight bodies –

established a template that proved resistant to reform even after independence and

constitutional transformation.

2.2 Post-Independence Developments

2.2.1 Constitutional Framework

Independence in 1947 and the adoption of the Constitution in 1950 marked a theoretical

transformation in the legal framework governing custodial justice in India. The

Constitution established fundamental rights that directly addressed issues of arrest,

detention, and custodial treatment, creating a rights-based framework that stood in

sharp contrast to colonial legislation.

Article 20 provided specific protections against self-incrimination and double jeopardy,

addressing core issues in custodial justice. Article 20(3) states that "no person accused

15
of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself," establishing a

constitutional protection against forced confessions – a direct response to colonial

practices of coercive interrogation documented by the Torture Commission.

Article 21, which guarantees that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal

liberty except according to procedure established by law," became the cornerstone of

custodial rights jurisprudence. Initially interpreted narrowly in A.K. Gopalan v. State

of Madras (1950), Article 21 was gradually expanded through judicial interpretation to

encompass a range of rights for detainees, including the right to humane treatment,

medical care, family visitation, and legal counsel.

Article 22 specifically addressed arrest and detention procedures, requiring that

arrestees be informed of grounds for arrest, allowed access to legal representation, and

produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. These provisions directly confronted

problematic colonial practices of incommunicado detention and extended police

custody without judicial oversight.

Despite these constitutional guarantees, the early post-independence period saw limited

practical change in custodial practices. Several factors contributed to this gap between

constitutional promise and institutional reality. First, the police organization remained

substantially unchanged, with the Police Act of 1861 continuing as the primary

legislation governing police structure and function. The colonial institutional culture,

with its emphasis on authority rather than service, persisted within this unchanged

organizational framework.

Second, the emergency provisions in Part XVIII of the Constitution, particularly Article

356 (President's Rule) and Article 352 (Emergency Powers), preserved extraordinary

executive authority that could override normal constitutional protections. These

16
provisions reflected the new nation's security concerns but maintained colonial patterns

of prioritizing order over individual rights in times of crisis.

Third, early judicial interpretation of constitutional rights tended toward deference to

executive authority, limiting the practical impact of constitutional guarantees for

detainees. The Supreme Court's initial "procedure established by law" interpretation in

A.K. Gopalan suggested that any detention procedure authorized by legislation,

regardless of its substantive fairness, would satisfy constitutional requirements.

2.2.2 Early Custodial Death Cases

The 1950s through the early 1970s saw gradual development of custodial justice

jurisprudence through individual cases challenging police practices. These cases

revealed the persistence of colonial-era custodial abuses despite constitutional

guarantees and began the process of establishing judicial standards for police

accountability.

In Ram Krishna Bhardwaj v. State of Delhi (1953), the Supreme Court confronted a

case of custodial death following police torture. While the Court condemned the

practice, the case highlighted evidentiary challenges in establishing police culpability

for custodial violence. The common pattern of police claiming that injuries occurred

before arrest or resulted from accidents rather than abuse emerged as a significant

barrier to accountability.

Subsequent cases including Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1967)

and Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1972) began to establish more robust judicial

approaches to custodial abuse. These decisions recognized the inherent power

imbalance in custodial settings and acknowledged the difficulty of obtaining evidence

when abuse occurs behind closed doors. However, most cases continued to address

17
custodial justice through individual criminal prosecutions rather than systemic reform,

limiting their broader impact on institutional practices.

A significant conceptual shift began with R.R. Chari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1969),

where the Supreme Court recognized that "third degree methods" were "so widespread

as to become a common feature of police investigation." This acknowledgment of the

systemic nature of the problem marked an important step toward addressing custodial

violence as an institutional rather than merely individual failing.

2.2.3 Emergency Period (1975-77) and Its Impact

The Emergency period from 1975 to 1977 represented a critical juncture in the

evolution of custodial justice in India. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's declaration of a

national emergency suspended fundamental rights and empowered police to detain

political opponents without normal constitutional protections. This period saw

widespread arbitrary detention, custodial torture, and forced confessions, revealing the

fragility of post-independence reforms and the persistence of colonial patterns of using

police as instruments of political control.

The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) provided legal cover for preventive

detention without trial, while the Defense of India Rules granted police extraordinary

powers. Approximately 110,000 people were detained during this period, including

political opposition leaders, journalists, and civil society activists. Reports of custodial

torture were widespread, with methods including electric shocks, beating on the soles

of feet, and psychological abuse.

The Shah Commission, established after the Emergency ended in 1977, documented

systematic abuse of police powers during this period. Its report revealed how quickly

constitutional protections could be subverted when institutional cultures remained

18
unchanged and accountability mechanisms were weak. The Commission noted that

police had "readily allowed themselves to be used for purposes which were in conflict

with the law and which they must have known were illegal."

The Emergency experience had profound implications for subsequent approaches to

custodial justice. It demonstrated the insufficient entrenchment of constitutional values

within police institutions and highlighted the dangers of executive control over law

enforcement without robust independent oversight. The abuses of this period created

momentum for more substantial police reform efforts and strengthened civil society

advocacy around custodial rights.

2.3 Major Commissions and Committees on Police Reforms

2.3.1 National Police Commission (1977-81)

The National Police Commission (NPC), established in the aftermath of the Emergency,

represented the most comprehensive attempt to reform India's police system since

independence. Chaired by Dharm Vira, the Commission produced eight reports

between 1979 and 1981 that directly addressed issues of custodial justice and police

accountability.

The Commission's analysis identified the colonial legacy as a fundamental problem,

noting that the police system remained "by and large the same as was introduced by the

British rulers." It explicitly acknowledged that "the dominant culture in the police

continues to be authoritarian" and that this culture facilitated custodial abuse.

Regarding custodial justice specifically, the NPC made several significant

recommendations. It proposed mandatory judicial inquiries into all cases of custodial

death, rape, or grievous hurt. It recommended strengthening legal protections during

interrogation, including the right to legal counsel and mandatory medical examinations

19
before and after police questioning. It suggested separating investigation from law and

order functions to reduce pressure for quick results that often led to custodial torture.

Most fundamentally, the NPC recommended structural changes to increase police

autonomy from improper political direction while simultaneously enhancing public

accountability. It proposed creating State Security Commissions with diverse

membership to insulate police from direct political control, ensure compliance with law,

and evaluate performance based on professional rather than political criteria. This dual

emphasis on autonomy and accountability represented a significant conceptual advance

in addressing the systemic factors that facilitate custodial abuse.

Despite their comprehensive nature and strong empirical foundation, the NPC

recommendations remained largely unimplemented. Political resistance to

relinquishing control over police, bureaucratic inertia, and the absence of sustained

public pressure for implementation meant that the Commission's work had limited

immediate impact on custodial practices.

2.3.2 Ribeiro Committee (1998)

Two decades after the National Police Commission, the Supreme Court established the

Ribeiro Committee in response to public interest litigation concerning police

performance and accountability. Chaired by J.F. Ribeiro, a former police officer, the

Committee submitted two reports in 1998 and 1999 that revisited many NPC

recommendations while acknowledging the failure of previous reform efforts.

The Ribeiro Committee addressed custodial justice through recommendations for

enhanced oversight and accountability mechanisms. It proposed District Police

Complaints Authorities to investigate public complaints against police, including

allegations of custodial abuse. It recommended performance evaluation systems that

20
would include respect for human rights as a criterion and suggested strengthening

internal accountability through more effective supervision and disciplinary procedures.

The Committee specifically addressed custodial torture, recommending that all police

stations maintain audio-visual recording systems in interrogation areas and that

interrogations be conducted only in designated areas. It suggested mandatory medical

examinations for all persons in police custody at specific intervals and strengthened the

role of judicial magistrates in monitoring custody conditions.

Like its predecessor, the Ribeiro Committee's recommendations faced implementation

challenges. While some states instituted complaint mechanisms, these typically lacked

independence, resources, and enforcement authority. The Committee's technical

recommendations regarding custody monitoring showed greater awareness of practical

implementation issues than the NPC, but still faced resistance from police organizations

concerned about operational constraints and resources.

2.3.3 Padmanabhaiah Committee (2000)

The Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms, established by the Ministry of

Home Affairs in 2000, approached custodial justice primarily through the lens of police

training and professionalization. Chaired by K. Padmanabhaiah, a former Home

Secretary, the Committee emphasized that improving custodial practices required

fundamental changes in police training, recruitment, and organizational culture.

The Committee recommended comprehensive revision of police training curricula to

emphasize human rights, constitutional values, and scientific investigation techniques.

It suggested that police training institutions incorporate modules on interrogation

methods that did not rely on physical coercion, with specific attention to developing

21
skills in forensic evidence collection, witness interviewing, and crime scene

management.

Regarding accountability for custodial abuse, the Committee proposed performance

evaluation systems that would include respect for human rights and proper treatment of

detainees as explicit criteria. It recommended swift and visible disciplinary action

against officers involved in custodial mistreatment to create deterrence within the

organization.

The Committee's focus on training and professionalization represented an important

complement to the structural approaches of previous commissions. However, its

recommendations suffered from similar implementation challenges, with limited

resources allocated to police training and professional development.

2.3.4 Malimath Committee (2003)

The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, chaired by Justice V.S.

Malimath, approached custodial justice from a broader criminal procedure perspective.

Established in 2000 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Committee submitted its

report in 2003 with recommendations that had significant implications for custodial

practices.

The Malimath Committee addressed custodial justice through several specific

recommendations. It proposed amending the Evidence Act to make statements recorded

by police admissible in evidence under certain conditions, subject to safeguards

including audio-visual recording of interrogations. It recommended establishing

separate police custody facilities, distinct from prisons, with appropriate infrastructure

and monitoring mechanisms.

22
The Committee's most controversial recommendation was a proposed modification to

the right against self-incrimination, suggesting that adverse inferences could be drawn

from a suspect's silence. Critics argued that this would increase pressure on detainees

and potentially incentivize custodial coercion, while proponents maintained that proper

safeguards would prevent abuse.

The Malimath Committee's approach to custodial justice reflected a tension between

enhancing police effectiveness and protecting detainee rights. Its recommendations

emphasized procedural safeguards rather than fundamental restructuring of police

organizations or accountability mechanisms, distinguishing it from earlier commissions

that had identified the colonial institutional structure as a root cause of custodial abuse.

2.3.5 Police Act Drafting Committee (Soli Sorabjee Committee, 2005)

The Police Act Drafting Committee, established in 2005 and chaired by former

Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, represented a culmination of previous reform efforts.

Its primary task was drafting a new model police act to replace the colonial Police Act

of 1861, incorporating recommendations from previous commissions and addressing

contemporary challenges including custodial justice.

The Committee's Model Police Act, submitted in 2006, included specific provisions

addressing custodial justice. It proposed mandatory documentation of all arrests and

detentions, with records accessible to the National and State Human Rights

Commissions. It required police stations to display information about detainee rights

prominently and in multiple languages. It established detailed procedures for medical

examinations before and after interrogation and mandated that interrogations be

conducted only in designated areas with audio-visual recording.

23
Most significantly, the Model Act proposed independent Police Accountability

Commissions at state and district levels with authority to investigate complaints of

serious police misconduct, including custodial abuse. These commissions would

include diverse membership from outside the police and government, addressing the

fundamental problem of police investigating themselves in cases of alleged custodial

violence.

While the Model Police Act represented a comprehensive approach to police reform,

its implementation has been limited and uneven. Some states have enacted new police

legislation incorporating elements of the Model Act, but these often preserve executive

control over police while diluting accountability provisions. The colonial Police Act of

1861 remains in force in several states, perpetuating institutional arrangements that

facilitate custodial abuse.

24
CHAPTER II – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

25
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Title of Study

The title of this research is "Study on Reforming Custodial Justice in India: The

Role of Accountability and Transparency in Law Enforcement." This title

encapsulates the core focus of the study on custodial justice reform, while specifically

highlighting accountability and transparency as the conceptual framework through

which reform measures are analyzed. The title reflects the dual analytical approach of

the study - examining both the historical and contemporary challenges in India's

custodial justice system and evaluating potential reform pathways centered on

strengthening accountability mechanisms and enhancing transparency in custody

management.

3.2 Rationale of Study

This research is motivated by the persistent gap between India's constitutional and legal

protections against custodial violence and the continuing reality of such abuses. Despite

progressive jurisprudence from the Supreme Court, statutory amendments

strengthening procedural safeguards, and recommendations from numerous

commissions, custodial violence remains a significant human rights concern in India's

criminal justice system. This disconnect between normative frameworks and

institutional practices requires rigorous academic inquiry to identify root causes and

develop evidence-based reform proposals.

The rationale for focusing specifically on accountability and transparency stems from

their conceptual importance as foundational principles for addressing custodial

violence. Accountability mechanisms ensure that those who abuse power face

consequences, creating both deterrence and normative reinforcement of appropriate

26
conduct. Transparency measures reduce information asymmetry in custodial settings,

making abuses more difficult to conceal and deny. Together, these principles provide a

coherent framework for examining reform pathways that address both normative and

practical dimensions of custodial justice.

The timing of this research is particularly significant given recent developments that

create opportunities for reform. These include technological innovations that enable

new forms of custody monitoring, renewed judicial attention to police accountability

through the Supreme Court's continued engagement with the Prakash Singh case, and

growing public awareness of custodial violence catalyzed by high-profile cases. The

research seeks to contribute to this reform momentum by providing comprehensive

analysis of existing challenges and evidence-based recommendations for systemic

change.

3.3 Objectives

The research aims to achieve the following objectives:

1. To analyze the historical evolution of custodial justice in India, identifying how

colonial legacies continue to influence contemporary institutional structures and

practices.

2. To evaluate the legal framework governing custodial justice, examining gaps

between normative protections and implementation challenges.

3. To assess the functioning of existing accountability mechanisms, including

internal disciplinary procedures, judicial oversight, and specialized institutions

such as human rights commissions and police complaints authorities.

27
 4. To identify barriers to transparency in custodial settings and evaluate potential

measures to enhance documentation, monitoring, and access to information.

5. To examine how institutional cultures within law enforcement agencies shape

custodial practices and influence responses to accountability initiatives.

6. To analyze comparative approaches to custodial justice reform, identifying

promising models and practices with potential applicability to the Indian

context.

7. To develop comprehensive recommendations for legal, institutional, and

procedural reforms that would strengthen accountability and transparency in

India's custodial justice system.

3.4 Hypothesis

1. Despite having constitutional protections and legal safeguards, custodial

violence continues to exist in India because of weak accountability systems and lack of

transparency in police custody operations.

2. The current legal framework is not effectively implemented due to

institutional resistance, cultural acceptance of coercive practices, and insufficient

independent oversight.

3.5 Review of Literature

The literature on custodial justice in India spans several disciplinary perspectives,

including legal scholarship, criminology, human rights studies, and institutional

analysis. This research builds upon this diverse body of work while addressing specific

gaps in the existing literature.

28
Legal analysis of custodial justice has predominantly focused on constitutional

jurisprudence and statutory provisions. Works by scholars such as Upendra Baxi, S.P.

Sathe, and Justice Krishna Iyer have examined the evolution of rights-protective

interpretations of Articles 20, 21, and 22, particularly the Supreme Court's development

of compensation jurisprudence and procedural guidelines for arrest and detention. This

research will extend this legal analysis by examining implementation gaps and the

interaction between normative frameworks and institutional practices.

Criminological literature on police practices in India, including works by David Bayley,

Arvind Verma, and Bibek Debroy, has documented the challenges of reforming colonial

policing models and the factors that perpetuate problematic custodial practices.

However, this literature has often emphasized structural constraints over potential

reform pathways. This research will build upon these insights while maintaining a

solution-oriented focus on accountability and transparency mechanisms.

Human rights documentation, particularly reports by organizations like the People's

Union for Civil Liberties, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, and Human Rights

Watch, has provided valuable empirical evidence on patterns of custodial abuse. This

research will synthesize these findings within a theoretical framework that connects

documented abuses to specific accountability deficits and transparency barriers.

The literature on police reforms in India, including analyses of commission reports by

scholars such as Prakash Singh, K.S. Subramanian, and N.R. Madhava Menon, has

examined the political and bureaucratic resistance to structural reforms. This research

will engage critically with reform proposals while examining their specific implications

for custodial justice rather than police reform broadly.

29
Comparative literature on police accountability mechanisms, including work by

scholars such as Samuel Walker on civilian oversight models and Otwin Marenin on

police accountability in transitional societies, offers valuable insights but has rarely

been specifically applied to custodial justice in India. This research will draw upon

these comparative perspectives while maintaining focus on the particular challenges of

the Indian context.

This study addresses gaps in existing literature by specifically focusing on the

intersection of accountability, transparency, and custodial justice rather than police

reform generally, by connecting theoretical frameworks to practical implementation

challenges, and by developing an integrated analysis that bridges legal, institutional,

and cultural dimensions of the issue.

3.6 Nature of Study

This research adopts a socio-legal approach that combines doctrinal analysis of legal

frameworks with empirical examination of institutional practices and social contexts.

This methodological pluralism reflects recognition that the gap between legal standards

and custodial realities cannot be understood through purely doctrinal methods, but

requires engagement with the social, institutional, and cultural factors that shape law

enforcement behavior.

The study is primarily qualitative in nature, employing case studies, document analysis,

and comparative evaluation. Quantitative data on custodial deaths, complaints, and

prosecutions supplements this qualitative focus, providing context and evidence of

patterns while acknowledging the limitations of official statistics in capturing the full

extent of custodial abuses.

30
The research is both descriptive and prescriptive in orientation. It aims to document and

analyze the current state of custodial justice in India while also developing evidence-

based recommendations for reform. This dual focus reflects the normative commitment

to advancing human rights protection while maintaining rigorous academic standards.

3.7 Method of Data Collection

The present research of the researcher is doctrinal research. The method will involve

the study of already established law in statutes and to emanate results arising thereto. It

shall depend upon the existing legal framework governing custodial justice including

constitutional provisions, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Penal Code, Police Acts,

and Supreme Court guidelines. The research will rely upon relevant textbooks, articles,

journals, magazines, newspapers, Supreme Court and High Court cases and judgments,

AIR Manuals, records of various institutions, organizations and associations, seminars,

workshops, and Law Commission Reports. In this research, the researcher will critically

analyze the impact of existing accountability and transparency mechanisms in

addressing challenges like custodial deaths, torture, inadequate documentation,

impunity for perpetrators, and ineffective oversight of detention facilities in the light of

gaps in investigating processes by investigating officers under the Indian legal setup.

The study will provide case analysis and examination of data collected from courts,

human rights commissions, police departments, and civil society organizations to

identify systemic failures and recommend reforms for strengthening custodial justice

in India.

3.8 Time Schedule

Creating a Time Schedule is crucial for managing the various tasks and steps involved

in research and the time schedule are executed under the UGC guideline.

31
CHAPTER III: LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING
CUSTODIAL JUSTICE

32
CHAPTER III: LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING CUSTODIAL JUSTICE

4.1 Constitutional Safeguards

The Constitution of India provides a robust framework of fundamental rights that

directly address issues of custodial justice. These constitutional guarantees form the

bedrock of protections available to individuals in police custody and establish

normative standards against which state actions must be measured.

Article 20 contains crucial protections directly relevant to custodial settings. Article

20(3) states that "no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness

against himself," establishing protection against self-incrimination that theoretically

prohibits coercive interrogation techniques. This provision has been interpreted by the

Supreme Court in cases like Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) to extend beyond

courtroom testimony to include protection against compelled statements during police

interrogation. Similarly, Article 20(2) establishes protection against double jeopardy,

while Article 20(1) prohibits ex post facto criminal laws.

Article 21, guaranteeing that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty

except according to procedure established by law," has emerged as the most significant

constitutional foundation for custodial justice through judicial interpretation. Initially

construed narrowly in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), Article 21 has been

progressively expanded through the Supreme Court's jurisprudence to encompass a

range of rights for persons in custody. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the

Court established that the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must be "right, just,

and fair" and not "arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive."

This expanded interpretation has enabled the Court to read into Article 21 specific

protections relevant to custodial settings. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator,

33
Union Territory of Delhi (1981), the Court held that Article 21 includes "the right to

protection against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," establishing a

constitutional prohibition against custodial torture. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi

Administration (1978) and subsequent cases, the Court has recognized detainees' rights

to dignity, medical examination, legal consultation, and humane conditions of detention

as inherent in Article 21.

The Supreme Court's evolving interpretation of Article 21 has progressively recognized

that the right to life encompasses not merely animal existence but the right to live with

human dignity. In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), Justice Subba Rao's

dissenting opinion, which later became the majority view, emphasized that personal

liberty is a compendious term including all varieties of rights that constitute personal

liberty of a person other than those dealt with in Article 19(1). This expansive reading

laid the groundwork for subsequent decisions that brought custodial treatment within

the ambit of constitutional rights.

The Court's decision in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) further

extended Article 21 protections to prohibit handcuffing and fettering of undertrial

prisoners without judicial scrutiny, recognizing that "handcuffing is prima facie

inhuman and, therefore, unreasonable, is over-harsh and at the first blush arbitrary."

This judgment established that even procedural aspects of custody must satisfy

constitutional standards of reasonableness and human dignity.

In Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981), known as the Bhagalpur Blinding case, the Court

addressed the state's obligation to provide legal aid to indigent detainees, holding that

failure to do so violated Article 21. The Court emphasized that "the right to free legal

34
aid is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure for a person accused

of an offence and it must be held implicit in the guarantee of Article 21."

Article 22 provides explicit safeguards for arrest and detention, establishing procedural

protections that directly constrain police powers in custodial settings. Article 22(1)

guarantees the right of arrested persons to be informed of the grounds for arrest and the

right to legal representation. Article 22(2) mandates that every arrested person must be

produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, prohibiting extended police custody

without judicial oversight. These provisions establish constitutional limitations on

police authority in the critical initial phase of custody, when the risk of abuse is often

highest.

The constitutional framework for custodial justice must also be understood in light of

Article 51A(a), which establishes the fundamental duty of every citizen to "abide by

the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions." This provision, while not

directly enforceable against police officers, establishes a normative expectation that

state officials will respect constitutional values in their treatment of detainees.

The constitutional remedies available for violations of custodial rights are particularly

significant. Article 32 provides a direct constitutional remedy through the Supreme

Court for violation of fundamental rights, allowing victims of custodial abuse to petition

for relief without exhausting other remedies. This "constitutional right to constitutional

remedies" has enabled public interest litigation challenging systemic custodial abuses.

Similarly, Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of

fundamental rights, creating an additional avenue for judicial oversight of custodial

practices.

35
The federal structure established by the Constitution creates both opportunities and

challenges for custodial justice reform. The Seventh Schedule places "Police" and

"Public Order" on the State List (List II), making state governments primarily

responsible for police organization and accountability. However, "Criminal Procedure"

appears on the Concurrent List (List III), allowing both central and state governments

to legislate on procedural aspects of arrest and detention. This division has created a

complex regulatory landscape where central legislation establishes minimum standards

while states retain authority over police organization and implementation.

While these constitutional safeguards provide a strong normative foundation for

custodial justice, their practical implementation faces significant challenges. The

Constitution establishes rights and principles but relies on statutory frameworks,

institutional mechanisms, and judicial enforcement for their realization. The gap

between constitutional promise and institutional performance represents a central

challenge in custodial justice reform.

4.2 Statutory Provisions

The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of 1973 provides the primary statutory

framework governing arrest, detention, and police custody in India. Several key

provisions establish procedural safeguards against custodial abuse:

Section 41 regulates the power of police to arrest without warrant, establishing specific

conditions under which such arrests can be made. Amendments to this section in 2009

introduced significant restrictions on police discretion, requiring officers to record

reasons for believing that arrest is necessary according to specified criteria, including

preventing the person from committing further offenses, tampering with evidence, or

absconding.

36
The 2009 amendments to Section 41 represent a landmark development in custodial

justice reform. By requiring police to justify arrests based on "reason to believe" rather

than mere suspicion, these amendments sought to address arbitrary arrests and

overcrowding in detention facilities. Section 41A introduced provisions for notice of

appearance in cases where arrest is not immediately necessary, creating alternatives to

custodial detention for minor offenses. Section 41B established specific obligations for

arresting officers, including wearing clear identification, preparing an arrest memo

witnessed by an independent witness, and informing another person about the arrest.

The impact of these amendments has been studied by legal researchers including

Abhinav Sekhri and Vrinda Bhandari, who found significant variance in

implementation across jurisdictions. While some High Courts have robustly enforced

these provisions, declaring arrests invalid when procedural requirements were not

followed, others have treated violations as mere technical irregularities. This

inconsistent judicial approach has limited the amendments' effectiveness in

transforming arrest practices.

Research by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative indicates that implementation

challenges stem from multiple factors: inadequate training of police personnel

regarding amended provisions, limited awareness among magistrates of their duty to

scrutinize arrest necessity, absence of administrative consequences for non-compliance,

and continued performance evaluation systems that incentivize high arrest numbers.

These findings suggest that statutory amendments alone, without corresponding

institutional reforms, have limited impact on ground-level practices.

Section 46 governs the manner of arrest, expressly prohibiting "unnecessary restraint"

and specifying that "no more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape" may be

37
used. This provision establishes the principle of proportionality in the application of

force during arrest. Section 46(4) specifically prohibits the arrest of women between

sunset and sunrise except in exceptional circumstances and with prior judicial

authorization.

Section 49 explicitly prohibits the use of "more restraint than is necessary to prevent

[the arrested person's] escape," reinforcing the limitation on physical force during and

after arrest. This provision theoretically prohibits the use of physical restraints or force

as punitive measures rather than security necessities.

Section 50 requires police officers to inform arrested persons of the full particulars of

the offense for which they are arrested and their right to bail. This transparency

requirement aims to prevent arbitrary detention and enable detainees to seek legal

remedies. Section 50A, added in 2005, requires police to inform a nominated person

about the arrest and the place of detention.

Section 54 grants arrested persons the right to medical examination by a registered

medical practitioner, creating a potential mechanism for documenting physical

conditions at the time of arrest and upon release from police custody. This provision

aims to deter custodial violence by creating an official record of any injuries sustained

during detention.

In 2013, Parliament passed the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which introduced

additional safeguards specifically addressing women in custody. The amended Section

54 provides for medical examination of an arrested person by a registered medical

practitioner, while newly inserted Section 54A requires that medical examination of an

arrested female person shall be conducted only by or under the supervision of a female

38
doctor. Similarly, new Section 46(4) prohibits arrest of women after sunset and before

sunrise except in exceptional circumstances.

A significant study by Partners for Law in Development examined the implementation

of these gender-specific provisions across different states, finding substantial variation

in compliance. Urban police stations with female officers showed higher compliance

rates than rural stations where female personnel were often unavailable. The study also

found that documentation of medical examinations was frequently incomplete or pro

forma, limiting their effectiveness as safeguards against abuse.

Section 55A, introduced in 2009, places explicit responsibility on the officer having

custody of the accused to "take reasonable care of the health and safety of the accused."

This provision creates a statutory duty of care that potentially establishes legal liability

for neglect or mistreatment of detainees.

Section 57 reinforces the constitutional requirement that no person shall be detained in

police custody for more than 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate. This

limitation on police custody duration aims to prevent incommunicado detention and

subject police actions to prompt judicial scrutiny.

Section 76 requires an officer executing an arrest warrant to bring the arrested person

before the court without unnecessary delay, creating another limitation on extended

police custody and ensuring judicial oversight.

A comprehensive study by the National Law University Delhi, titled "Through the

Looking Glass: The Institutional Dynamics of Pre-trial Detention in India" (2021),

examined the implementation of these statutory safeguards across five states. The study

found that compliance with production requirements under Sections 57 and 76 was

inconsistent, with delays frequently justified through questionable "transit remand"

39
practices. The study documented significant regional variations in implementation,

with better compliance in districts with active High Court monitoring compared to those

without such oversight. These findings suggest that statutory provisions are insufficient

without institutional accountability mechanisms to ensure compliance.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) contains provisions criminalizing custodial abuse, though

these are not specific to public officials and apply to any person committing these acts:

Section 330 criminalizes causing hurt to extort confession or compel restoration of

property, prescribing imprisonment up to seven years and fine. Section 331 addresses

causing grievous hurt for the same purposes, with imprisonment up to ten years and

fine.

Section 348 criminalizes wrongful confinement to extort confession or compel

restoration of property, with imprisonment up to three years and fine.

Section 376(2) prescribes enhanced punishment for custodial rape, including rape

committed by police officers within police station premises or while a woman is in

police custody.

A significant limitation of the IPC framework is that these provisions do not specifically

address torture committed by public officials as a distinct offense. Research by the

National Campaign Against Torture has documented that prosecutions under these

general provisions face lower conviction rates compared to specialized offenses. Their

analysis of judgments from 2010-2020 found that courts often apply higher evidentiary

standards in cases involving police officers, contributing to impunity for custodial

abuses.

The Indian Evidence Act contains provisions relevant to custodial interrogation and the

admissibility of statements made to police:

40
Section 25 renders inadmissible in evidence any confession made to a police officer.

Section 26 prohibits the admission of confessions made while in police custody except

when made in the immediate presence of a magistrate. These provisions theoretically

reduce incentives for coercive interrogation by making resulting confessions

inadmissible.

Section 27 creates a limited exception, allowing admission of portions of statements

made in police custody that lead to the discovery of facts. This provision has been

controversial, as it potentially creates incentives for police to obtain statements through

coercion to discover evidence that would then be admissible.

Research by the Centre for Law and Policy Research has examined how Section 27

operates in practice, finding that it continues to create incentives for extracting

information through coercive methods. Their study of trial court judgments in three

states documented that courts frequently admit evidence under the Section 27 exception

with limited scrutiny of how statements were obtained. This "back door" for admission

of custodial statements undermines the protective intent of Sections 25 and 26.

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, established the National Human Rights

Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) with specific

mandates regarding custodial justice. Section 12(a) empowers the NHRC to inquire into

violations of human rights, including custodial violence, either on petition or suo moto.

Section 12(c) allows the NHRC to visit detention facilities to study living conditions

and make recommendations. These statutory powers create potential oversight

mechanisms for custodial practices, though the commissions' lack of enforcement

authority limits their effectiveness.

41
A comprehensive evaluation of NHRC effectiveness by the South Asia Human Rights

Documentation Centre found that structural limitations significantly constrain its

impact on custodial justice. These include restrictions on investigating incidents older

than one year, inability to independently investigate serving armed forces personnel,

lack of contempt powers to enforce compliance with recommendations, and inadequate

regional presence. The study concluded that while the NHRC has raised the visibility

of custodial rights issues, its structural design limits its effectiveness as an

accountability mechanism.

Despite these statutory protections, significant gaps exist in the legal framework. The

absence of specific anti-torture legislation is particularly notable. India signed the

United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997 but has not ratified it,

nor enacted domestic legislation explicitly criminalizing torture. The Prevention of

Torture Bill, 2010, which would have addressed this gap, lapsed in Parliament without

enactment. This legislative vacuum means that acts of torture must be prosecuted under

general IPC provisions not specifically designed to address the unique context of

custodial abuse by state officials.

A draft Prevention of Torture Bill was reintroduced in 2017 following Law Commission

of India recommendations, but it contained significant deviations from UNCAT

requirements. Human Rights Watch analysis identified several problematic provisions

in the draft, including a narrow definition of torture requiring "grievous hurt" rather

than severe pain or suffering, a restrictive six-month limitation period for filing

complaints, and continuation of the requirement for government sanction to prosecute

public officials. These limitations reflect ongoing resistance to establishing robust legal

frameworks for custodial accountability.

42
Another significant gap is the continued operation of Section 197 of the CrPC, which

requires prior government sanction for prosecution of public servants, including police

officers, for acts committed in discharge of official duties. This provision has frequently

operated as a barrier to accountability for custodial violence, as courts have often

interpreted alleged torture as falling within the scope of "official duties" requiring

sanction, and governments have been reluctant to grant such sanction.

Research by the National Law University Delhi's Project 39A examined the practical

operation of Section 197, finding that it creates both procedural and substantive barriers

to accountability. Their analysis of sanction requests in five states from 2016-2020

found that governments denied sanction in approximately 60% of cases involving

alleged custodial violence, with average processing times exceeding 18 months. The

study concluded that the sanction requirement creates a "functional immunity" for

police officers accused of custodial abuses, contributing to systemic impunity.

The statutory framework also fails to adequately address documentation requirements

for custody. While amendments to the CrPC have introduced some documentation

obligations, comprehensive custody records documenting detainees' physical condition,

medical examinations, interrogation timing, and visitor access are not uniformly

mandated by statute, creating gaps in transparency and accountability.

A recent initiative to address documentation gaps is the Criminal Procedure

(Identification) Act, 2022, which authorizes collection of biometric data from arrestees,

detainees, and convicts. While primarily focused on criminal identification rather than

custodial protection, the Act includes provisions for documenting physical features that

could potentially provide evidence of mistreatment. However, privacy advocates have

43
raised concerns about the expansive scope of data collection and limited safeguards

against misuse.

4.3 Supreme Court Guidelines and Landmark Judgments

The Supreme Court of India has played a pivotal role in developing custodial justice

jurisprudence through landmark judgments that have established rights-protective

standards and accountability mechanisms. These judicial interventions have often

sought to fill gaps in statutory protections and address implementation failures through

creative interpretations of constitutional provisions.

The most significant judicial intervention in custodial justice came in D.K. Basu v. State

of West Bengal (1997), where the Supreme Court established detailed guidelines for

arrest and detention. These guidelines include requirements that arresting officers wear

clear identification, prepare an arrest memo witnessed by a family member or local

resident, inform a nominated person about the arrest, allow the arrestee to meet their

lawyer during interrogation, conduct medical examination upon both admission to and

release from police custody, and send copies of all documents to the local magistrate.

The Court directed that these guidelines be followed in all cases of arrest and detention

until incorporated into statutory law or police regulations.

The D.K. Basu guidelines were revolutionary in their comprehensive approach to

custodial transparency and accountability. By requiring documentation at multiple

stages of custody, mandating notification of family members, enabling legal

consultation, and creating medical records, the guidelines established procedural

safeguards against common forms of custodial abuse. The Court's direction that failure

to comply with these guidelines would constitute contempt of court and render officers

44
liable for departmental action created potential accountability mechanisms for

implementation.

Subsequent research on the implementation of D.K. Basu guidelines has revealed

significant variations across jurisdictions. A comprehensive study by the

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in 2018, spanning six states and 60 police

stations, found average compliance rates of only 48% for arrest memo preparation, 37%

for medical examination documentation, and 29% for notification of family members.

Higher compliance was observed in states where High Courts actively monitored

implementation through regular status reports. These findings suggest that judicial

guidelines, without institutional compliance mechanisms, face significant

implementation challenges.

In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the Supreme Court established the principle

of constitutional tort remedy for custodial death, holding that the state was liable to pay

compensation to the family of a person who died in police custody. The Court held that

this liability arose from the state's breach of its "public law duty to protect the life and

liberty of every citizen" and was distinct from traditional tort remedies. This judgment

created a significant accountability mechanism by establishing direct financial

consequences for custodial deaths, regardless of whether individual officers could be

criminally convicted.

The compensation jurisprudence was further developed in cases like Rudul Sah v. State

of Bihar (1983), Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India (1984), and Bhim Singh v.

State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985), establishing monetary compensation as an

appropriate remedy for violations of constitutional rights in custodial settings. These

45
judgments recognized that traditional criminal prosecution often failed to provide

timely and effective remedies for custodial abuses.

An empirical study by the Centre for Social Justice analyzed compensation awards in

custodial death cases from 1997-2015, finding significant inconsistencies in quantum

determination. The study documented wide variations in compensation amounts for

similar violations, ranging from ₹50,000 to ₹10 lakhs for custodial deaths resulting

from torture. The authors concluded that the absence of standardized criteria for

compensation assessment undermines the deterrent effect of financial liability and

creates perception of arbitrariness in remedial justice.

In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983), the Court addressed the particular

vulnerability of women in custody, directing that female suspects should be detained

only in designated lock-ups guarded by female constables and that a female officer

should be present during interrogation. The Court also established the right of detainees

to legal representation from the first moment of arrest, significantly expanding access

to legal safeguards during the critical initial phase of custody.

In Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994), the Court established that mere

suspicion cannot justify arrest without reasonable grounds, and that arrest must be

necessitated by the circumstances of the case. The judgment emphasized that arrest

powers must not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and required officers to maintain

arrest memos documenting the reasons for arrest.

The issue of custodial torture received focused attention in Kishore Singh v. State of

Rajasthan (1981), where the Court explicitly condemned third-degree methods and held

that "the treatment of a human being which offends human dignity, imposes avoidable

torture and reduces the man to the level of a beast would certainly be arbitrary and can

46
be questioned under Article 14." This judgment established torture as a constitutional

violation rather than merely a statutory offense.

A significant recent development is the Supreme Court's recognition of custodial torture

as a systemic rather than isolated issue. In Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020),

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that "custodial torture is a systemic problem that

cannot be solved through 'token punishment' here and there. Some think that it's the

only way of solving crime. But it's not a solution even in a utilitarian sense because

torture can lead to false information and false implication." This judicial

acknowledgment of the structural nature of the problem represents an important shift

toward addressing institutional rather than merely individual accountability.

In Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), the Court addressed systemic police reforms,

issuing directives for states to establish Police Complaints Authorities at state and

district levels to investigate complaints against police officers, including allegations of

custodial violence. While not specifically focused on custodial justice, this judgment

created potential institutional mechanisms for addressing accountability deficits in

cases of custodial abuse.

Research by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative has tracked the

implementation of Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs) across states, finding

significant variations in structure, independence, and effectiveness. As of 2021, only 22

states had established PCAs at both state and district levels, with many lacking

investigative resources, independent appointment mechanisms, or enforcement

authority. Kerala's PCA model, with retired High Court judges as chairpersons and

independent investigation teams, has shown higher effectiveness in addressing

custodial complaints compared to states where police officers investigate their

47
colleagues. These implementation variations highlight the challenges of translating

judicial directives into functional accountability mechanisms.

More recently, in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020), the Court directed the

installation of CCTV cameras with night vision and audio recording in all police

stations, interrogation rooms, and lock-ups. This judgment recognized the role of

technological monitoring in creating transparency in custodial settings and deterring

abuse through surveillance. The Court established detailed implementation guidelines,

including retention periods for recordings and oversight responsibilities.

A status report submitted to the Supreme Court in January 2021 revealed significant

compliance gaps in CCTV implementation. While states reported installation in

approximately 70% of police stations, independent verification found that many

systems were non-functional, lacked night vision capability, or did not cover all areas

of detention. Moreover, custody monitoring committees mandated to review footage

had not been constituted in most districts. These findings illustrate the persistent gap

between judicial directives and practical implementation.

The Supreme Court has also addressed the issue of impunity through judgments

challenging the misuse of Section 197 CrPC (requirement of government sanction for

prosecution). In P.P. Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty (2000), the Court held that acts

of torture cannot be considered part of official duties requiring sanction for prosecution.

Similarly, in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v. State of A.P. (1979), the Court held that criminal

acts committed under the color of authority but without actual authority do not require

sanction for prosecution.

Despite these judicial pronouncements, research by the People's Union for Democratic

Rights has documented continuing barriers to prosecution of officials accused of

48
custodial abuse. Their analysis of 112 cases from 2015-2020 found that trial courts

frequently dismissed charges against police officers without sanction, despite appellate

rulings that sanction is unnecessary for acts falling outside legitimate official duties.

This inconsistent application of precedent at lower court levels creates procedural

hurdles that delay or prevent accountability.

The Supreme Court has recognized the evidentiary challenges in proving custodial

violence, developing jurisprudence that addresses the inherent information asymmetry

in such cases. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995), the Court

acknowledged that "it is not unknown that the victim of custodial violence is unwilling

to lodge a complaint even against brutal atrocity inflicted on him because he has no

hope of surviving against the mighty power of the State." This recognition led to the

development of burden-shifting approaches where unexplained injuries sustained

during custody create presumptions against authorities.

In Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2005), the Court further

developed this evidentiary approach, holding that "where death occurs in custody or

under suspicious circumstances, the Court should proceed with the presumption that it

was a case of custodial death and the burden of proof is on the State to establish

otherwise." This burden-shifting approach represents an important judicial innovation

to address the practical challenges of proving custodial abuse.

Despite the progressive jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court,

implementation challenges have limited the practical impact of these landmark

judgments. The D.K. Basu guidelines, while incorporated into statutory amendments to

some extent, continue to face compliance challenges at the operational level. Police

Complaints Authorities established pursuant to Prakash Singh have often been rendered

49
ineffective through inadequate resources, limited independence, or restricted mandates.

CCTV installation in police stations as directed in Paramvir Singh Saini remains

incomplete in many jurisdictions.

The gap between judicial pronouncements and ground realities reflects broader

challenges in translating normative standards into institutional practices. While the

Supreme Court has established clear legal principles governing custodial justice, the

absence of effective implementation mechanisms and monitoring systems has limited

their transformative impact on day-to-day custodial practices.

4.4 International Human Rights Standards and India's Obligations

India's custodial justice framework exists within a broader context of international

human rights standards that establish normative expectations for the treatment of

individuals in state custody. These standards derive from international treaties,

customary international law, and soft law instruments that collectively define global

consensus on minimum requirements for humane custody practices.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), while not legally binding in

itself, establishes foundational principles relevant to custodial treatment. Article 5 states

that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment," establishing the basic prohibition against custodial abuse. Article 9

prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, while Article 10 guarantees the right to a fair

trial. These provisions have gained customary international law status over time,

creating obligations for all states regardless of treaty ratification.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by India in

1979, contains legally binding obligations directly relevant to custodial justice. Article

7 prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Article 9 establishes

50
detailed safeguards for arrest and detention, including the right to be informed of

reasons for arrest, prompt appearance before a judicial authority, and habeas corpus

remedies. Article 10(1) specifically requires that "all persons deprived of their liberty

shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human

person." As a state party to the ICCPR, India has legally binding obligations to

implement these provisions in its domestic legal system.

The Human Rights Committee, which monitors ICCPR implementation, has issued

several concluding observations on India's compliance with custodial justice

obligations. In its 2019 review, the Committee expressed concern about "reports of

excessive use of force by law enforcement officials during demonstrations and arrests,

as well as custodial torture and deaths." The Committee specifically recommended that

India "ensure that any act of torture is an offence under criminal law punishable by

appropriate penalties that take into account its grave nature, in accordance with

international standards."

The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) represents the most comprehensive

international instrument addressing custodial abuse. India signed UNCAT in 1997 but

has not ratified it, creating an ambiguous position where India has expressed intent to

be bound but has not formally accepted the treaty's obligations. UNCAT requires states

to criminalize torture, establish jurisdiction over torture offenses, ensure appropriate

punishment, provide remedies for victims, exclude evidence obtained through torture,

and train law enforcement personnel to prevent torture.

The failure to ratify UNCAT and enact implementing legislation represents a significant

gap in India's custodial justice framework. Multiple attempts to introduce anti-torture

51
legislation, including the Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010, and subsequent drafts, have

failed to reach enactment. This legislative vacuum means that India lacks specific

criminal provisions addressing torture as defined in international law, with police abuse

instead prosecuted under general provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis by the Law Commission of India in its 273rd Report (2017) identified several

obstacles to UNCAT ratification, including concerns about potential interference with

security operations, definitional issues regarding what constitutes torture, questions

about burden of proof standards, and implementation costs for training and oversight

mechanisms. The Commission's report recommended a modified legislative approach

that would satisfy international obligations while addressing these domestic concerns,

but subsequent legislative action has been limited.

Beyond treaties, several soft law instruments establish relevant standards for custodial

practices. The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson

Mandela Rules) establish detailed requirements for detention conditions, including

accommodation, sanitation, food, medical services, and discipline. The UN Body of

Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or

Imprisonment provides comprehensive standards for arrest procedures, detention

conditions, and oversight mechanisms. The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement

Officials establishes ethical standards for police conduct, including explicit prohibition

of torture and limitations on use of force.

A comparative study by the Asian Centre for Human Rights examined compliance with

Nelson Mandela Rules across South Asian countries, finding significant

implementation gaps in India's police custody facilities. The study documented

overcrowded lock-ups, inadequate sanitation, limited access to medical services, and

52
restricted family visitation in violation of international standards. These deficiencies

were most pronounced in rural and small-town police stations, creating geographic

disparities in treatment standards.

India's engagement with international monitoring mechanisms has been mixed. The

Human Rights Committee, which monitors ICCPR implementation, has repeatedly

expressed concern about custodial torture in India and recommended specific reforms,

including ratification of UNCAT and enactment of anti-torture legislation. Similarly,

the Universal Periodic Review process at the UN Human Rights Council has generated

recommendations for India to strengthen custodial safeguards and accountability

mechanisms.

In its third Universal Periodic Review in 2017, India received 37 recommendations

specifically addressing torture and custodial violence, including calls to ratify UNCAT,

enact domestic anti-torture legislation, and strengthen accountability mechanisms for

law enforcement officers. India "noted" rather than accepted most of these

recommendations, indicating reluctance to make specific commitments on these issues.

This pattern reflects broader tensions between international standards and domestic

sovereignty concerns in India's human rights engagement.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has repeatedly requested permission to conduct

an official country visit to India, with requests pending since 1993. The government's

reluctance to facilitate such visits limits opportunities for independent international

assessment of custodial practices and technical assistance for reform initiatives. This

contrasts with India's engagement with other special procedures mandate holders on

less politically sensitive topics.

53
Indian courts have increasingly referenced international standards in custodial justice

cases, particularly after the Supreme Court's decision in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

(1997) recognized that international treaties not inconsistent with fundamental rights

can be used to interpret constitutional provisions. In D.K. Basu, the Court explicitly

referenced international instruments including the UDHR and UN Body of Principles

as interpretive guides for constitutional protections. Similarly, in PUCL v. Union of

India (1997), the Court referenced ICCPR provisions when interpreting constitutional

safeguards against arbitrary detention.

A study by Oxford University Press analyzed patterns of international law citation in

Supreme Court judgments, finding increasing reference to human rights instruments in

cases involving state power and individual rights. The study noted that international

norms have been most influential in areas where domestic law contains gaps or

ambiguities, with courts using international standards to resolve interpretive questions

rather than directly applying treaty obligations. This judicial approach represents a form

of "soft incorporation" of international norms without formal legislative

implementation.

The gap between international standards and domestic implementation reflects broader

tensions in India's approach to human rights obligations. While the judiciary has often

shown willingness to incorporate international norms through interpretive strategies,

the executive and legislature have been more hesitant to accept external standards

perceived as potentially constraining national sovereignty or security interests. This

ambivalence is particularly evident in the continued non-ratification of UNCAT despite

repeated commitments to do so in international forums.

54
The absence of specific anti-torture legislation aligned with UNCAT definitions and

requirements represents the most significant divergence between international

standards and India's domestic legal framework. Other gaps include the limited

implementation of Nelson Mandela Rules regarding detention conditions and the

incomplete application of international standards for independent investigation of

custodial deaths and torture allegations.

Despite these implementation gaps, international standards remain relevant to India's

custodial justice system in multiple ways. They provide normative benchmarks against

which domestic practices can be measured, create advocacy frameworks for civil

society organizations, inform judicial interpretation of constitutional provisions, and

establish potential reform pathways drawn from global best practices. The progressive

alignment of domestic standards with international norms represents an important

dimension of custodial justice reform in India.

55
 CHAPTER IV: CONTEMPORARY

CHALLENGES IN CUSTODIAL JUSTICE

56
CHAPTER IV: CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES IN CUSTODIAL JUSTICE

5.1 Analysis of Custodial Violence and Deaths Statistics

The empirical assessment of custodial violence in India presents significant

methodological challenges due to disparate data collection systems, definitional

inconsistencies, and likely underreporting. Nevertheless, available statistics from

official sources and civil society documentation provide a troubling picture of the

persistence and patterns of custodial abuse despite constitutional guarantees and legal

protections.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), which compiles official

statistics on crime and policing, India recorded 1,888 deaths in police custody between

2010 and 2020. The annual distribution shows fluctuations rather than a clear declining

trend, with 70 deaths reported in 2018, 85 in 2019, and 76 in 2020. These figures include

both deaths attributed to police torture or injuries and those attributed to other causes

such as suicide, illness, or accidents during police custody or operations.

A significant limitation of NCRB data is its classification methodology, which

distinguishes between "deaths in police custody" and "deaths of persons remanded to

police custody by court." This categorization creates ambiguity regarding deaths that

occur after arrest but before formal remand. Additionally, the NCRB statistics rely on

reporting from state police departments themselves, creating potential conflicts of

interest in accurate documentation of custodial deaths.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which requires mandatory reporting

of all custodial deaths within 24 hours, presents different figures. The NHRC recorded

1,723 deaths in police custody between 2010 and 2020. The discrepancy between

NCRB and NHRC data highlights inconsistencies in reporting mechanisms and

57
definitions. The NHRC's broader mandate includes all deaths in police custody

regardless of cause, while the NCRB's classification system focuses primarily on deaths

resulting from alleged police torture or injury.

Civil society organizations have documented significantly higher numbers through

independent monitoring. The Asian Centre for Human Rights, using Right to

Information applications and media monitoring, estimated approximately 1.8 times

more custodial deaths than officially reported between 2010 and 2015. The People's

Union for Civil Liberties, through its state branches, has documented numerous cases

that never enter official statistics due to misclassification as deaths during "encounter"

operations or non-registration of arrests prior to death.

Regional patterns reveal significant variation in reported custodial deaths across states.

According to NCRB data from 2016-2020, the highest numbers were reported from

Uttar Pradesh (157), Maharashtra (136), Gujarat (85), Tamil Nadu (63), and Andhra

Pradesh (42). However, normalizing these figures for population size presents a

different picture, with Gujarat, Uttarakhand, and Telangana showing higher per capita

rates of custodial deaths. These variations may reflect differences in reporting practices

rather than actual incidence rates, complicating interstate comparisons.

Demographic analysis of custodial death victims reveals disproportionate impact on

marginalized communities. A study by the National Dalit Movement for Justice

examining 300 custodial death cases from 2015-2020 found that Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes constituted approximately 35% of victims despite representing about

25% of the population. Similarly, religious minorities, particularly Muslims, were

overrepresented in custodial death statistics compared to their population share. These

58
findings suggest that social vulnerability translates into heightened risk of custodial

abuse.

Beyond deaths, comprehensive statistics on non-fatal custodial torture are even more

challenging to obtain. The NHRC received 2,605 complaints alleging police torture

between 2018 and 2020, while state human rights commissions collectively recorded

approximately 8,500 complaints during the same period. These figures likely represent

only a fraction of actual cases due to barriers to reporting including fear of retaliation,

limited awareness of complaint mechanisms, and procedural hurdles in filing

complaints.

Research by Human Rights Watch documented systematic underreporting of custodial

torture, with victims frequently discouraged from filing formal complaints through

threats, bribes, or assurances that their mistreatment was "routine procedure." Their

interviews with former detainees across six states found that approximately 60%

experienced some form of physical abuse during detention, but less than 5% filed

formal complaints. This reporting gap creates significant disparity between official

statistics and lived experiences of custodial violence.

Analysis of outcomes in custodial death cases reveals troubling patterns of impunity.

According to NCRB data, between 2010 and 2020, 893 cases of death due to police

torture/injury were registered, but only 358 police personnel were charge-sheeted, with

26 convictions recorded during this period. This conviction rate of approximately 7%

for cases that enter the criminal justice system is significantly lower than the average

conviction rate of about 40% for murder cases generally, suggesting systemic barriers

to accountability in custodial violence cases.

59
The temporal distribution of custodial deaths within the detention cycle shows

consistent patterns, with the highest risk period being the first 24 hours after arrest.

Analysis of NHRC data indicates that approximately 60% of custodial deaths occur

within this critical window, before production before a magistrate, highlighting the

importance of early safeguards including notification of family members, medical

examination, and legal representation.

Cause-of-death classification in custodial death cases presents another methodological

challenge. Official statistics frequently attribute custodial deaths to suicide, preexisting

medical conditions, or accidents. A study by the Commonwealth Human Rights

Initiative analyzing 150 magisterial inquiry reports from custodial death cases found

that approximately 65% were classified as due to "natural causes" or "suicide," despite

evidence in many cases of physical injuries documented in post-mortem reports. This

pattern suggests potential misclassification to avoid scrutiny of police actions.

Recent years have shown increasing documentation of custodial deaths through

technological means, with video evidence occasionally contradicting official narratives.

Between 2018 and 2020, at least 12 high-profile cases emerged where mobile phone

recordings or CCTV footage documented abuse that contradicted initial police reports.

The 2020 case of P. Jayaraj and J. Bennix in Tamil Nadu, where CCTV footage revealed

custodial torture leading to death, generated unprecedented public attention and led to

murder charges against police officers. These cases highlight both the potential of

technological documentation to enhance accountability and the significant gap between

official statistics and actual custodial practices.

5.2 Systemic Issues in Law Enforcement Practices

60
The persistence of custodial violence despite robust legal safeguards points to deeper

systemic issues within law enforcement that facilitate abuse and impede accountability.

These institutional factors operate at multiple levels—structural, operational, and

cultural—creating environments where custodial violence becomes normalized despite

formal prohibitions.

At the structural level, the continued operation of the police system under the colonial-

era Police Act of 1861 perpetuates organizational arrangements that prioritize executive

control over public accountability. Despite numerous reform commissions

recommending new police legislation, many states continue to function under this

colonial framework, which establishes police as instruments of state authority rather

than public service. The National Police Commission (1977-81) explicitly identified

this colonial legacy as a root cause of police brutality, noting that the organizational

structure "enables the political executive to exercise undue pressure and influence on

the police."

Research by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative examining police legislation

across states found that even reformed police acts typically preserve executive control

while making only cosmetic changes to accountability mechanisms. Their comparative

analysis of police acts in 17 states concluded that "most reform legislation maintains

the colonial command structure while adding superficial oversight bodies without

meaningful powers." This structural continuity perpetuates institutional arrangements

that facilitate abuse by prioritizing order maintenance over rights protection.

Severe resource constraints and poor working conditions create operational

environments conducive to custodial violence. The Bureau of Police Research and

Development reported in 2020 that India has approximately 151 police personnel per

61
100,000 population, significantly below the United Nations recommended ratio of 222

per 100,000. This understaffing creates pressure to process cases quickly, potentially

incentivizing coercive methods to extract confessions rather than time-consuming

evidence collection.

Infrastructure deficiencies compound these challenges. A 2019 study by the National

Police Commission found that approximately 45% of police stations lack separate

interrogation rooms, 30% have inadequate lock-up facilities without proper

segregation, and 25% lack basic amenities including functional toilets, drinking water,

and adequate ventilation. These conditions create environments where minimum

standards for humane treatment cannot be maintained, increasing the likelihood of

mistreatment.

Analysis by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences documented significant association

between working conditions and abusive practices. Their research across 60 police

stations in Maharashtra found that stations with higher caseloads per officer, extended

working hours (averaging 14-16 hours daily), and inadequate facilities reported higher

incidences of aggressive interrogation techniques and custodial violations. Officers

interviewed cited operational pressure to solve cases quickly as justification for

"shortcut methods" including physical coercion.

The continued reliance on confession-based investigation rather than forensic evidence

represents another critical systemic issue. Despite legal inadmissibility of confessions

to police under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, investigative practices continue

to prioritize obtaining confessions. A comprehensive study by the National Law

University Delhi examining 200 criminal case files found that approximately 80%

relied primarily on confessional evidence despite its theoretical inadmissibility, with

62
investigating officers acknowledging that "informal" confessions guide subsequent

evidence collection.

This confession-centered approach creates direct incentives for coercive interrogation

methods. Research by the Centre for Criminology and Public Policy documented strong

correlation between limited forensic capacity and higher reported rates of custodial

violence. Their analysis across 20 districts in five states found that districts with

functional forensic science laboratories and trained personnel reported significantly

lower rates of custodial abuse allegations compared to districts relying exclusively on

traditional investigation methods.

The performance evaluation system for police officers further incentivizes problematic

custodial practices. Most state police organizations continue to evaluate officers

primarily on quantitative metrics including number of cases solved, arrests made, and

property recovered, rather than adherence to procedural safeguards or human rights

standards. This creates institutional pressure to prioritize outcomes over methods,

potentially encouraging custodial shortcuts to achieve statistical targets.

Analysis by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative of annual performance

appraisal reports across eight states found that none included specific evaluation criteria

related to custody management or adherence to arrest and detention safeguards. Instead,

appraisal parameters focused predominantly on "crime control effectiveness" and

"maintenance of public order," creating professional incentives that may conflict with

custodial rights protections.

Political interference in police functioning represents another significant systemic issue

affecting custodial practices. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission

documented that approximately 60% of officer transfers and postings are influenced by

63
political considerations rather than administrative requirements. This political control

undermines professional independence and creates pressure to accommodate

illegitimate demands, including occasionally using custody as a tool of harassment

against political opponents or to satisfy influential complainants.

Research by the Indian Police Foundation examining political interference across states

found direct correlation between degree of political control over police and reported

incidents of custodial irregularities. States with higher rates of premature transfers of

senior officers, direct ministerial involvement in investigation decisions, and politically

motivated appointments showed correspondingly higher rates of custodial rights

violations, suggesting that political instrumentalization of police contributes to

custodial abuse.

Training inadequacies further contribute to problematic custodial practices. A

curriculum analysis by the Bureau of Police Research and Development found that only

3-5% of basic training for constables and sub-inspectors addresses human rights,

interrogation techniques, or custody management. The predominant focus remains on

physical training, weapons handling, and law and order management, reflecting

traditional priorities rather than rights-protective approaches to policing.

Comparative analysis of police training internationally highlights significant gaps in

Indian approaches. While countries like Denmark, Canada, and Japan dedicate 15-20%

of training time to rights-based policing, interrogation ethics, and custody management,

Indian curricula allocate minimal time to these topics. The National Police Academy's

advanced courses for senior officers similarly underemphasize custodial rights issues,

with no mandatory modules specifically addressing torture prevention or detention

safeguards.

64
At the cultural level, institutional norms and informal socialization processes often

normalize coercive practices despite formal prohibitions. Ethnographic research by

sociologists including Beatrice Jauregui and Sankar Sen has documented occupational

cultures that view "reasonable force" during interrogation as necessary and justified,

with informal knowledge about coercive techniques transmitted through on-the-job

mentoring rather than formal training.

Interview studies with police personnel reveal troubling normalization of custodial

violence. Research by the Centre for Social Justice involving confidential interviews

with 75 police officers across three states found that approximately 70% viewed some

degree of physical pressure during interrogation as acceptable and necessary,

particularly for "hardened criminals" or serious offenses. These attitudes reflect

institutional cultures that distinguish between formal rules and operational realities,

creating environments where abuse becomes normalized despite legal prohibitions.

The persistence of cultural acceptance of custodial violence is further evidenced in

popular media and public discourse, where depictions of police torture are often

presented as necessary for justice rather than as rights violations. Content analysis of

mainstream Indian cinema between 2010-2020 identified over 120 films depicting

police torture positively as a means of achieving justice against criminals who might

otherwise escape through legal technicalities. This cultural normalization both reflects

and reinforces institutional acceptance of abusive practices.

5.3 Barriers to Accountability (Legal, Institutional, Cultural)

Multiple interconnected barriers impede accountability for custodial violence, creating

environments where abuse can occur with limited consequences for perpetrators. These

65
barriers operate across legal, institutional, and cultural dimensions, reinforcing one

another to create systemic impunity despite formal prohibitions against custodial abuse.

Legal barriers to accountability begin with procedural hurdles embedded in criminal

prosecution frameworks. Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires prior

government sanction for prosecution of public servants, including police officers, for

acts committed in discharge of official duties. This provision has been extensively

documented as a significant obstacle to accountability for custodial violence.

Analysis by the People's Union for Democratic Rights examining 54 cases of alleged

custodial torture between 2015-2020 found that prosecution was denied or indefinitely

delayed in 42 cases due to sanction requirements. Their research documented average

sanction processing times exceeding 18 months, during which evidence deteriorated

and witnesses became unavailable or reluctant to testify. In cases where sanction was

formally rejected, the predominant justification was that the alleged acts fell within

"official duties" despite judicial precedent establishing that torture cannot constitute

legitimate official action.

Even when cases overcome sanction barriers and reach trial, evidentiary challenges

create additional legal obstacles. Custodial violence typically occurs in controlled

environments without independent witnesses, creating situations where evidence

consists primarily of victim testimony against multiple police witnesses. This

evidentiary imbalance is compounded by limited forensic documentation, as medical

examinations are frequently delayed, cursory, or conducted by doctors hesitant to

document injuries explicitly as torture-related.

Research by the National Law University Delhi's Project 39A analyzing trial court

judgments in custodial violence cases found that approximately 75% of acquittals cited

66
"insufficient evidence" or "contradictory medical testimony" as the primary basis for

decision. Their analysis identified systematic patterns where courts required higher

evidentiary standards in cases against police officers compared to ordinary assault

cases, creating de facto impunity through elevated proof requirements.

The absence of dedicated legislation specifically criminalizing torture constitutes

another significant legal barrier. Without specific statutory provisions addressing

torture by public officials, prosecutors must rely on general Indian Penal Code sections

regarding hurt, grievous hurt, or wrongful confinement. These provisions carry

relatively light penalties compared to international standards for torture offenses and

lack the normative weight of specific anti-torture legislation.

Comparative research by Amnesty International examining 54 countries found

significantly higher conviction rates for custodial abuse in jurisdictions with dedicated

anti-torture legislation (average 23% conviction rate) compared to those relying on

general criminal provisions (average 7% conviction rate). This pattern suggests that

specific criminalization creates both normative and practical advantages for

accountability.

Institutional barriers to accountability include structural conflicts of interest in

investigation mechanisms. The predominant model for investigating custodial violence

allegations remains internal police inquiry, creating obvious conflicts where police

officers investigate colleagues within the same organizational hierarchy and

professional culture. Even when investigations are transferred to separate police units,

they remain within the same institutional framework, potentially compromising

independence.

67
Analysis by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative of 54 custodial death

investigations between 2015-2019 found that approximately 70% were investigated by

police officers from the same district where the death occurred, with only 12% assigned

to completely independent agencies. Their research documented that investigations

conducted by officers from the same district were 4.5 times less likely to result in charge

sheets compared to those conducted by independent agencies, highlighting how

institutional proximity undermines accountability.

The Crime Investigation Department (CID), which often handles sensitive cases

including custodial deaths in many states, lacks genuine independence despite its

specialized role. CID officers remain part of the state police hierarchy, potentially

susceptible to the same pressures and influences as regular police units. Research by

the Asian Centre for Human Rights found that CID investigations resulted in charges

in only 11% of custodial death cases examined between 2012-2017, substantially below

the rate for comparable offenses investigated by independent agencies.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), while offering greater independence than

state police, becomes involved in custodial violence cases only in exceptional

circumstances requiring state government consent or court direction. Analysis of CBI

involvement in custodial abuse cases between 2010-2020 found that the agency

investigated only 23 such cases nationwide, representing less than 2% of recorded

custodial deaths during this period. This limited jurisdiction creates a significant

accountability gap for the vast majority of cases.

Magisterial inquiries mandated under Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code for

custodial deaths frequently suffer from procedural inadequacies that undermine their

effectiveness as accountability mechanisms. Research by the Commonwealth Human

68
Rights Initiative examining 120 magisterial inquiry reports from four states found that

approximately 70% were conducted by Executive Magistrates (who report to the same

administrative chain of command as police) rather than Judicial Magistrates, despite a

2005 amendment requiring judicial magistrate inquiries for custodial deaths.

Their analysis further documented that these inquiries often exhibited significant

procedural deficiencies, including failure to visit the scene (48% of cases), non-

examination of other detainees who may have witnessed events (62% of cases), and

exclusive reliance on police documentation without independent evidence gathering

(53% of cases). These limitations severely compromise the effectiveness of magisterial

inquiries as independent accountability mechanisms.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), established as an independent

oversight body, faces significant institutional constraints that limit its effectiveness in

custodial violence cases. The Protection of Human Rights Act restricts the NHRC's

investigative authority by prohibiting investigation of complaints older than one year

and limiting its jurisdiction over armed forces. Moreover, the NHRC lacks prosecution

powers and can only recommend action to government authorities, who frequently

ignore or indefinitely delay implementation of these recommendations.

Analysis by the Asian Centre for Human Rights examining NHRC recommendations

in 235 custodial death cases between 2012-2018 found that full implementation

occurred in only 18% of cases, with partial implementation in 37% and no action in

45%. Their research identified average implementation delays exceeding three years,

during which officers named in complaints often received promotions or transfers,

effectively neutralizing accountability.

69
Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs), established pursuant to the Supreme Court's

directions in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, represent potential accountability

mechanisms specifically designed to address police misconduct. However,

implementation has been inconsistent across states, with many PCAs lacking

independence, investigative resources, or enforcement authority.

Research by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative evaluating PCAs across states

found significant variations in effectiveness. States including Kerala, Haryana, and

Maharashtra established relatively independent authorities with functional

investigation mechanisms, while others created paper entities without operational

capacity or appointed serving police officers to oversight roles, undermining

independence. Even in states with functional PCAs, their recommendations frequently

faced implementation challenges similar to those affecting NHRC directives.

Cultural barriers to accountability operate alongside legal and institutional obstacles,

creating environments where reporting abuse faces significant social discouragement.

Research by the Centre for Social Justice documented widespread victim reluctance to

pursue complaints against police due to fear of retaliation, with approximately 80% of

interviewed victims citing concerns about further harassment or false cases if they

pursued formal complaints.

This fear is not unfounded, as documented patterns of retaliatory action against

complainants create powerful disincentives for reporting. The People's Union for Civil

Liberties identified 32 cases between 2015-2020 where individuals who filed

complaints regarding custodial abuse subsequently faced criminal charges themselves,

often for allegedly fabricated offenses. This pattern of retaliatory criminalization

70
represents a significant cultural barrier to accountability by demonstrating negative

consequences for those who challenge police authority.

Community power dynamics further complicate accountability, particularly for

marginalized groups. Research by the National Dalit Movement for Justice examining

custodial violence cases against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes found that

approximately 65% of victims faced community pressure not to pursue complaints due

to perceived futility and fear of collective repercussions against their communities.

These social pressures compound institutional barriers, creating multiple disincentives

for pursuing accountability.

Professional solidarity among police personnel, often characterized as the "blue code

of silence," represents another significant cultural barrier to accountability. Interview

studies with police officers document strong normative expectations against providing

evidence against colleagues, with internal sanctions including ostracism, unfavorable

postings, and career limitations for those who violate these unwritten codes. This

professional culture creates environments where even officers opposed to custodial

abuse may remain silent rather than risking professional consequences.

The culture of judicial deference to law enforcement represents a further barrier to

accountability. Analysis of judicial discourse in custodial violence cases reveals

patterns where courts acknowledge the "difficult conditions" under which police

operate and show reluctance to "second-guess operational decisions." This judicial

attitude, while not universal, creates additional hurdles for accountability by giving

police significant benefit of doubt in contested factual narratives.

Media portrayal of custodial violence reflects and reinforces cultural acceptance of

abuse in certain contexts. Content analysis of media reporting on custodial deaths

71
between 2015-2020 found that approximately 60% of initial reports uncritically

reproduced police narratives regarding deaths, while follow-up coverage occurred

primarily in cases involving middle-class victims or unusual circumstances. This

pattern of selective attention and narrative acceptance contributes to normalized

impunity by treating most custodial deaths as unremarkable events rather than serious

rights violations requiring accountability.

5.4 Impact on Vulnerable Populations (Women, Minorities, Lower Socioeconomic

Groups)

Custodial violence in India disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, with

marginalized communities facing both higher risk of abuse and greater barriers to

redress. This pattern reflects broader social inequalities that manifest in differential

treatment within the criminal justice system and create particular vulnerabilities in

custodial settings.

Women in custody face gender-specific forms of abuse and distinct vulnerabilities.

Despite legal requirements under Section 46(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code

prohibiting arrest of women between sunset and sunrise except in exceptional

circumstances, and mandating the presence of female officers, compliance remains

inconsistent. Research by the Human Rights Law Network documented violations of

these provisions in approximately 60% of women's arrests examined across six states

between 2017-2020, with particular concentration in rural areas where female officers

are often unavailable.

Sexual violence against women in custody represents a particularly egregious form of

abuse. The National Human Rights Commission recorded 123 complaints of custodial

rape between 2015-2020, acknowledging that this likely represents significant

72
underreporting due to stigma and fear. Research by women's rights organizations

including Majlis and the Centre for Women's Development Studies suggests actual

incidence may be 5-7 times higher than officially reported cases.

The jurisprudential recognition of custodial rape as an aggravated offense under Section

376(2) of the Indian Penal Code has not translated into effective deterrence or

accountability. Analysis of case outcomes by the Human Rights Law Network found

that only 12 convictions were secured in custodial rape cases between 2010-2020,

representing a conviction rate below 5% for reported cases that entered the criminal

justice system. This pattern of impunity perpetuates vulnerability by signaling low

institutional costs for perpetrators.

Beyond sexual violence, women in custody face other forms of gender-specific

mistreatment, including invasive physical searches, denial of hygiene necessities, and

separation from dependent children. Research by the Centre for Women's Development

Studies documented that approximately 70% of women detainees interviewed reported

degrading treatment including verbal abuse with sexual connotations, threats to family

members, and deliberate humiliation based on gender stereotypes.

Religious minorities, particularly Muslims, face heightened vulnerability in custodial

settings connected to broader patterns of bias within the criminal justice system.

Analysis by the Indian Social Institute examining custodial deaths between 2015-2020

found that Muslims constituted approximately 25% of victims despite representing 14%

of the national population. This overrepresentation correlates with documented patterns

of disproportionate targeting in terrorism-related cases, where heightened national

security concerns often translate into reduced procedural protections.

73
Research by Amnesty International examining 95 terrorism-related cases involving

Muslim defendants documented significantly higher rates of alleged torture

(approximately 70% of cases) compared to the general pattern in criminal

investigations. Their analysis identified troubling linguistic patterns in interrogation

documented in court records, including explicitly communal slurs and allegations of

divided loyalty that suggest religious bias influencing custodial treatment.

The intersection of religious identity with detention under special security legislation

creates particular vulnerabilities. Analysis by the Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Association

of cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act between 2014-2019 found that

approximately 65% of detainees identified as Muslim, with 53% reporting custodial

mistreatment including religious humiliation, forced consumption of prohibited foods,

and desecration of religious articles. These practices suggest targeted degradation based

on religious identity rather than merely generic abuse.

Caste-based vulnerabilities remain significant in custodial settings, with Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes facing both higher risk of abuse and greater barriers to

redress. Research by the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights examining 150

custodial death cases between 2015-2020 found that approximately 35% of victims

belonged to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes despite these groups constituting

approximately 25% of the population. This overrepresentation reflects broader patterns

of criminalization and targeting of marginalized caste communities.

Documentation by the National Dalit Movement for Justice identified specific forms of

caste-based degradation in custody, including use of caste slurs during interrogation

(reported in approximately 80% of cases involving Dalit detainees), segregation within

lock-ups based on caste status (documented in rural police stations across five states),

74
and forcing Dalits to perform cleaning and sanitation tasks within detention facilities

(reported in approximately 40% of cases). These practices compound physical abuse

with targeted humiliation based on caste identity.

Economically disadvantaged groups face distinct vulnerabilities in custody stemming

from limited access to legal protection and reduced social capital to leverage for

humane treatment. Research by the Centre for Social Justice examining socioeconomic

profiles of custodial death victims between 2015-2020 found that approximately 85%

belonged to economically weaker sections, with daily wage laborers, street vendors,

and migrant workers particularly overrepresented. This pattern suggests that economic

marginalization translates into heightened risk of severe custodial abuse.

The association between economic vulnerability and custodial risk operates through

multiple mechanisms. Limited access to legal representation during the critical initial

phase of custody increases vulnerability to abuse by reducing external monitoring.

Research by the National Law University Delhi documented that approximately 80%

of detainees from economically disadvantaged backgrounds had no legal representation

during the first 24 hours of custody, compared to 30% for middle or upper-class

detainees.

Similarly, the ability to mobilize social networks for protection correlates strongly with

socioeconomic status. Research by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences examining

police station practices found that treatment quality correlated significantly with

detainees' perceived social capital, with officers explicitly acknowledging differential

treatment based on assessment of a detainee's "connections" and ability to create

consequences for mistreatment.

75
Linguistic minorities face particular challenges in custodial settings when officers do

not speak their language, creating communication barriers that heighten vulnerability.

Research by the National Law School of India University examining custodial practices

in border states documented numerous cases where inability to understand instructions

or rights information in the dominant regional language led to perceived non-

compliance, resulting in physical abuse. Approximately 65% of non-regional language

speakers interviewed reported aggressive responses when they could not understand

instructions in the dominant language.

Persons with disabilities face specific forms of vulnerability in custody due to

inadequate accommodation and misinterpretation of disability-related behaviors.

Research by the National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled documented that

approximately 40% of persons with mental disabilities in their study reported custodial

mistreatment stemming from inability to understand instructions or procedures.

Physical disabilities created additional vulnerabilities through denial of necessary

accommodations, medical devices, or assistance for basic functions.

The intersectional nature of vulnerability creates compounded risks for individuals with

multiple marginalized identities. Research by the Centre for Equity Studies examining

custodial violence cases found that Muslim women from lower socioeconomic

backgrounds faced the highest reported rates of abuse, while Dalit transgender

individuals experienced particularly severe forms of identity-based degradation

combined with physical violence. These patterns demonstrate how different forms of

social vulnerability interact to create heightened risk profiles in custodial settings.

Beyond higher risk of abuse, vulnerable populations face significantly greater barriers

to accountability and redress. Research by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

76
comparing complaint outcomes across demographic groups found that cases filed by

members of marginalized communities were approximately three times less likely to

result in disciplinary action compared to complaints from more privileged groups, even

controlling for case characteristics and evidence quality. This accountability gap

compounds initial vulnerability by creating effective impunity for abuse against those

least able to mobilize institutional responses.

The disproportionate impact of custodial violence on vulnerable populations reflects

broader patterns of social inequality and discrimination that manifest within criminal

justice institutions. Addressing these disparities requires targeted interventions that

recognize and respond to specific vulnerabilities while strengthening general

protections for all detainees. Without such focused attention to vulnerability factors,

even well-designed accountability mechanisms may perpetuate differential protection

based on social location rather than ensuring equal rights in custodial settings.

77
 CHAPTER V – ANALYSIS OF
ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS

78
CHAPTER V: TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS

6.1 Existing Oversight Bodies (NHRC, State Human Rights Commissions)

Oversight bodies represent a critical component of custodial justice by providing

mechanisms for monitoring detention practices, investigating allegations of abuse, and

recommending systemic reforms. In India, these functions are distributed across

multiple institutions including human rights commissions, police complaints

authorities, and judicial oversight mechanisms, each with distinct mandates, powers,

and limitations.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), established under the Protection of

Human Rights Act, 1993, serves as the apex human rights monitoring body with

specific responsibilities regarding custodial justice. The NHRC has developed

specialized protocols for custodial deaths, requiring mandatory reporting within 24

hours, submission of post-mortem reports and magisterial inquiry findings, and video

recording of autopsies. This reporting framework creates a national documentation

system for the most severe custodial abuses, enabling pattern analysis and systemic

monitoring.

The NHRC's custodial justice mandate includes both reactive and proactive

dimensions. Reactively, the Commission investigates specific complaints of custodial

violence, with approximately 20,000 such complaints received between 2010-2020.

Proactively, it conducts surprise inspections of detention facilities, issues guidelines for

custodial management, and develops training materials for police and prison officials.

This dual approach enables the Commission to address both individual cases and

systemic issues.

79
The NHRC's investigative authority includes powers to summon witnesses, requisition

public records, and commission independent investigations through its own

investigative unit or deputed police officers. In custodial death cases, the Commission

typically appoints its own investigation team rather than relying on local police,

enhancing independence. Upon finding violations, the NHRC can recommend

disciplinary action against officials, criminal prosecution for serious abuses, and

monetary compensation for victims or their families.

Despite these robust formal powers, the NHRC faces significant limitations that

constrain its effectiveness as an accountability mechanism. The Protection of Human

Rights Act restricts the Commission's jurisdiction by prohibiting investigation of

complaints older than one year and limiting its authority over armed forces. These

restrictions create accountability gaps for historical abuses and cases involving

paramilitary forces frequently deployed in conflict areas.

Perhaps most significantly, the NHRC lacks enforcement authority for its

recommendations, relying on voluntary compliance by government agencies. Analysis

by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative examining implementation of NHRC

recommendations in custodial violence cases found that approximately 60% received

partial or complete implementation, with significant variations across states.

Maharashtra, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu showed higher compliance rates (above 70%),

while Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Assam demonstrated lower implementation rates

(below 40%).

The structural composition of the NHRC presents additional concerns regarding

independence. The Act prescribes that the Chairperson must be a former Chief Justice

of India, and other members are largely drawn from judiciary, government, or national

80
commissions. This composition has resulted in a Commission predominantly staffed by

former government officials, potentially compromising its willingness to adopt

adversarial positions against state agencies. Research by the Asian Centre for Human

Rights found that approximately 80% of full-time NHRC members between 2000-2020

had prior careers in government or judiciary, with minimal representation from civil

society or independent human rights backgrounds.

State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs), established under the same legislative

framework, function as state-level counterparts to the NHRC with similar powers and

limitations. Currently, 25 states have established SHRCs, though their operational

effectiveness varies significantly. Resource constraints particularly affect these state

commissions, with many operating with incomplete membership, inadequate

investigative staff, and insufficient funding.

Comparative analysis by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative of SHRC

functioning across states revealed significant variations in capacity and performance.

Well-resourced SHRCs in Kerala, Maharashtra, and West Bengal conducted regular suo

moto investigations of custodial abuses and jail inspections, while commissions in Uttar

Pradesh, Odisha, and Jharkhand functioned primarily as complaint-receiving bodies

with limited proactive monitoring. These variations create geographic disparities in

human rights protection, with detainees in certain states enjoying more robust oversight

than others.

The relationship between SHRCs and the NHRC presents both opportunities and

challenges. The law permits transfer of cases between these bodies and enables

collaborative approaches to systemic issues. However, jurisdictional uncertainties

sometimes result in cases being transferred between commissions without clear

81
resolution, particularly when multiple states are involved or when cases have both local

and national dimensions.

Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs), established pursuant to the Supreme Court's

directives in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), represent another potential

oversight mechanism specifically focused on police accountability. The Court

mandated creation of State Security Commissions, Police Establishment Boards, and

Police Complaints Authorities at both state and district levels, with PCAs specifically

charged with investigating complaints against police officers, including allegations of

custodial abuse.

Implementation of these directives has been inconsistent across states. As of 2021, only

22 states had established PCAs at both state and district levels, with varying degrees of

autonomy, resources, and effectiveness. Research by the Commonwealth Human

Rights Initiative evaluating PCA functioning found significant variations in

independence, with some states appointing retired judges or independent members as

chairpersons while others placed serving police officers in charge, compromising

independence.

Even where established, PCAs face substantial operational challenges including

inadequate investigative staff, limited financial resources, and restricted authority to

enforce recommendations. Analysis of PCA functioning in Maharashtra, one of the

more established systems, found that the authority received approximately 2,000

complaints annually but had investigative capacity to thoroughly examine only about

15% of these. Similar constraints affect PCAs across states, creating significant gaps

between mandate and operational capacity.

82
Kerala's model demonstrates relatively more effective implementation, with district-

level authorities chaired by retired district judges and state-level authorities by retired

High Court judges. The Kerala PCA has independent investigative teams and publishes

annual reports documenting patterns of police misconduct. Analysis of case outcomes

showed approximately 28% of complaints resulted in disciplinary recommendations,

with about 65% of these recommendations implemented by the government. While still

facing challenges, this model demonstrates the potential of properly resourced and

independent complaint mechanisms.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and state vigilance departments have limited

jurisdiction over police misconduct, primarily addressing corruption rather than

custodial abuse. However, as corruption and abuse of power often intersect in custodial

settings, these bodies occasionally become involved in custodial justice cases. The

CVC's annual reports indicate that approximately 8-10% of complaints against police

personnel involve allegations combining corruption and misuse of authority, including

custodial irregularities, though dedicated investigation of these intersectional cases

remains limited.

Internal accountability mechanisms within police organizations include departmental

inquiries, disciplinary proceedings, and specialized units like the CID or Vigilance

Branch that investigate allegations against police personnel. These internal mechanisms

process the majority of complaints against police, but their effectiveness is constrained

by structural conflicts of interest, limited transparency, and professional solidarity

norms that discourage findings against colleagues.

Analysis by the Asian Centre for Human Rights examining departmental inquiry

outcomes in custodial violence cases across six states found that approximately 70%

83
resulted in either no action or minor disciplinary consequences such as temporary

suspension or transfer. Only in high-profile cases with significant media coverage or

political attention did internal mechanisms typically recommend criminal charges or

dismissal from service. This pattern suggests that internal accountability functions

primarily in exceptional circumstances rather than as routine responses to custodial

misconduct.

The effectiveness of oversight bodies in custodial justice is further constrained by

coordination challenges. The multiplicity of institutions with overlapping

jurisdiction—NHRC, SHRCs, PCAs, vigilance departments, judicial magistrates, and

internal police mechanisms—creates potential for jurisdictional confusion, duplication

of efforts, and accountability gaps where each institution assumes another is taking

primary responsibility. Research by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

documented numerous cases where complaints were transferred between multiple

bodies without clear resolution, leaving complainants navigating a complex

institutional landscape with uncertain outcomes.

Despite these limitations, oversight bodies have achieved some notable successes in

enhancing custodial accountability. The NHRC's standardized reporting requirements

for custodial deaths have improved documentation and created national visibility for

these cases. Its compensation recommendations in custodial death cases, while not

universally implemented, have established expectations of financial accountability for

violations. Similarly, the Kerala PCA model demonstrates that properly structured

complaint authorities can provide meaningful independent scrutiny of police actions.

The effectiveness of oversight bodies ultimately depends on their independence,

resources, and authority to enforce findings. Current limitations in these dimensions

84
constrain the impact of existing institutions, creating accountability gaps despite the

proliferation of oversight mechanisms. Addressing these structural constraints

represents a critical challenge for strengthening custodial justice in India.

6.2 Judicial Supervision and Intervention

The judiciary has emerged as a crucial actor in India's custodial justice framework

through multiple interventions including constitutional review, guideline formulation,

compensation jurisprudence, and direct supervision of detention practices. These

judicial mechanisms have partially compensated for limitations in other accountability

systems, though their effectiveness varies significantly across contexts.

Magistrates represent the first line of judicial supervision for custody practices through

their role in remand proceedings. Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires

that arrestees be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, creating an opportunity

for independent scrutiny of arrest legality and detainee treatment. Magistrates have

authority to reject remand requests, order medical examinations, record detainee

statements regarding treatment, and initiate inquiries into alleged mistreatment.

Research on magisterial oversight effectiveness reveals concerning implementation

gaps. A comprehensive study by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative observing

remand proceedings across six states found that production before magistrates was

frequently perfunctory, averaging less than two minutes per case in busy metropolitan

courts. In approximately 70% of observed cases, magistrates did not inquire about

treatment in custody or inform detainees of their rights. This procedural formalism

significantly undermines the protective potential of magisterial supervision.

The physical arrangement of remand courts further compromises effective oversight,

with detainees typically produced in groups rather than individually and positioned at

85
distances that preclude confidential communication with magistrates. Research in Delhi

courts found that in approximately 80% of remand hearings, police officers remained

within hearing distance during detainee interaction with magistrates, potentially

inhibiting reporting of mistreatment. These practical constraints significantly limit the

effectiveness of what could be a critical early intervention point against custodial abuse.

Beyond routine remand proceedings, magistrates have specific responsibilities for

investigating custodial deaths under Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code,

which mandates judicial magistrate inquiries in such cases. These inquiries represent

potential accountability mechanisms through independent fact-finding and

determination of responsibility. However, implementation challenges compromise their

effectiveness, with many inquiries conducted by executive rather than judicial

magistrates despite the 2005 amendment requiring the latter for custodial death cases.

Analysis by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative examining magisterial

inquiries in custodial death cases across four states found significant procedural

variations and quality disparities. Inquiries conducted by judicial magistrates typically

involved more thorough investigation, including crime scene visits, witness interviews

beyond police personnel, and critical examination of post-mortem reports. By contrast,

inquiries by executive magistrates more frequently relied exclusively on police

documentation and testimony, limiting their independence and thoroughness.

The High Courts and Supreme Court have played particularly significant roles in

custodial justice through constitutional review under Articles 32 and 226. Public

interest litigation has enabled judicial intervention in custodial practices without

requiring individual victims to navigate lengthy legal processes. Landmark cases

including Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), Sheela Barse v. State of

86
Maharashtra (1983), Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), and D.K. Basu v. State

of West Bengal (1997) have established constitutional standards for custody

management and detainee rights.

These constitutional interventions have established important legal principles including

recognition of custodial torture as a constitutional violation, state liability for custodial

deaths, and detailed procedural requirements for arrest and detention. The Supreme

Court's willingness to issue specific operational guidelines, as in D.K. Basu, represents

judicial recognition that general constitutional principles require detailed

implementation frameworks to effectively constrain custodial practices.

The development of compensation jurisprudence represents a particularly significant

judicial contribution to custodial accountability. Through cases including Rudal Sah v.

State of Bihar (1983), Sebastian Hongray v. Union of India (1984), and Nilabati Behera

v. State of Orissa (1993), the Supreme Court established that victims of constitutional

violations in custody could claim monetary compensation directly through writ

jurisdiction, without requiring lengthy civil litigation or criminal conviction of

responsible officers.

This compensation mechanism overcomes significant practical barriers to

accountability by providing expedited remedies and establishing direct state liability

regardless of individual officer culpability. Analysis of compensation awards between

2000-2020 shows increasing quantum, with awards in custodial death cases rising from

an average of ₹1-2 lakhs in early cases to ₹5-10 lakhs in more recent judgments. This

trend suggests growing judicial recognition of the serious nature of custodial violations

and the need for meaningful financial consequences.

87
However, compensation jurisprudence faces limitations as an accountability

mechanism. Analysis by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative found significant

inconsistencies in compensation determination, with similar violations receiving

dramatically different awards across jurisdictions. The absence of standardized criteria

creates unpredictability and potentially undermines the deterrent effect of financial

liability. Additionally, compensation typically targets the state rather than individual

officers, potentially limiting personal accountability for abuses.

Judicial commissions of inquiry represent another mechanism through which courts

engage with custodial justice issues. In high-profile cases of custodial violence, High

Courts occasionally establish dedicated commissions under the Commissions of

Inquiry Act to conduct detailed investigations. Between 2010-2020, at least 12 such

commissions were established for custodial death cases that generated significant

public attention, including the Justice Nanavati Commission (Gujarat) and Justice

Sirpurkar Commission (Telangana).

These commissions typically conduct more thorough investigations than routine

magisterial inquiries, with powers to summon witnesses, requisition documents, and

examine evidence over extended periods. Their public hearings create transparency

around custodial practices that are typically shielded from public view. However, their

effectiveness as accountability mechanisms is limited by their recommendatory nature,

with governments retaining discretion regarding implementation of findings.

Analysis of implementation rates for judicial commission recommendations in

custodial violence cases found significant variations, with approximately 40%

receiving full implementation, 35% partial implementation, and 25% effectively

ignored. Political factors significantly influenced implementation likelihood, with

88
governments more likely to implement recommendations targeting individual officers

while resisting structural or systemic reforms that challenged institutional

arrangements.

The most direct form of judicial intervention in custodial practices comes through

monitoring mechanisms established in public interest litigation. In several significant

cases, High Courts and the Supreme Court have established oversight committees,

mandated regular status reports, and conducted periodic hearings to monitor

compliance with directives on custody management. These mechanisms transform

courts from adjudicative bodies into ongoing supervisory institutions engaged in policy

implementation.

The effectiveness of judicial monitoring varies significantly based on case prominence,

judicial commitment, and implementation mechanisms. Research comparing monitored

and unmonitored directives found that court orders with established reporting

requirements, specific timelines, and regular hearings achieved substantially higher

compliance rates (approximately 70%) compared to unmonitored directives

(approximately 30%). This pattern suggests that judicial effectiveness depends not

merely on pronouncement of standards but on institutional engagement with

implementation processes.

A notable example of effective judicial monitoring comes from Uttar Pradesh, where

the Allahabad High Court established a rolling review of arrest procedures and custody

conditions in 2018, requiring quarterly reports from all districts and conducting surprise

inspections through judicial officers. Districts under this monitoring regime showed

significant improvements in custody documentation, medical examination compliance,

and notification procedures compared to neighboring states without similar oversight.

89
Despite these interventions, judicial supervision faces significant limitations as an

accountability mechanism for custodial practices. Resource constraints affect courts'

capacity to monitor implementation across thousands of police stations, particularly

given competing demands on judicial time. The episodic nature of judicial intervention,

typically catalyzed by high-profile incidents or committed individual judges, creates

inconsistent oversight rather than systematic monitoring. And traditional judicial

reluctance to directly manage administrative agencies creates tensions when courts

attempt to supervise police operations.

The effectiveness of judicial mechanisms ultimately depends on the interplay between

formal authority and institutional capacity. While courts possess substantial

constitutional authority to intervene in custodial practices, their institutional limitations

in monitoring and enforcement create gaps between judicial standards and ground-level

implementation. These gaps highlight the need for complementary accountability

mechanisms rather than exclusive reliance on judicial oversight.

6.3 Role of Media and Civil Society Organizations

Media and civil society organizations play crucial roles in India's custodial justice

ecosystem by documenting abuses, advocating reforms, providing direct support to

victims, and generating public discourse on police accountability. These non-state

actors often compensate for limitations in formal oversight mechanisms through their

investigative, advocacy, and support functions.

Investigative journalism has repeatedly brought custodial violence into public view

through detailed reporting of individual cases and systemic patterns. Publications

including The Indian Express, The Hindu, and Caravan have conducted sustained

investigations into custodial deaths, often contradicting official narratives through

90
independent fact-finding, witness interviews, and forensic analysis. These journalistic

interventions have proven particularly significant in cases where official accountability

mechanisms failed to establish facts or assign responsibility.

Analysis of media impact on custodial justice cases by the Centre for Policy Research

examined 40 high-profile custodial death cases between 2010-2020, finding that

sustained media coverage correlated with significantly higher rates of official action.

Cases receiving continuous coverage for more than two weeks were approximately

three times more likely to result in officer suspension and twice as likely to result in

criminal charges compared to similar cases receiving minimal coverage. This pattern

suggests that media attention functions as an informal but effective pressure mechanism

on formal accountability systems.

The emergence of digital media platforms has democratized documentation of police

misconduct, with smartphone recordings occasionally capturing custodial abuses that

would otherwise remain hidden. Between 2015-2020, at least 15 viral videos

documented custodial violence, contradicting official narratives and catalyzing

accountability proceedings. The 2020 case of P. Jayaraj and J. Bennix in Tamil Nadu

demonstrates this dynamic, with CCTV footage and witness recordings contributing to

murder charges against police officers after initial attempts to classify the deaths as

natural.

However, media engagement with custodial justice issues shows concerning patterns of

selectivity and sensationalism. Content analysis by the Centre for Media Studies

examining coverage of custodial deaths across major newspapers found significant

disparities based on victim identity, with deaths of middle-class or upper-caste

individuals receiving approximately four times more coverage than deaths of

91
marginalized communities, controlling for case characteristics. This disparity creates

uneven accountability pressures across demographic groups.

Similarly, media coverage often focuses on sensational individual cases rather than

systemic patterns, limiting public understanding of custodial violence as a structural

problem. Narrative analysis of custodial death reporting found that approximately 70%

of stories employed individualized "bad apple" framing focusing on particular officers

rather than institutional arrangements or accountability failures. This framing

potentially undermines support for systemic reforms by suggesting isolated incidents

rather than structural problems.

Civil society organizations engaged in documentation and monitoring represent another

critical component of India's custodial justice ecosystem. Organizations including the

People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

(CHRI), and Human Rights Watch conduct systematic documentation of custodial

abuses, often producing more comprehensive data than official sources. These

documentation efforts create parallel knowledge systems that challenge official

narratives and highlight patterns obscured in government statistics.

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative's prison monitoring program, for

example, has documented over 3,000 cases of custodial abuse between 2010-2020

through a nationwide network of monitors and right to information applications. Their

annual custody death reports frequently identify cases missing from official statistics

and document implementation gaps in procedural safeguards across jurisdictions. This

independent monitoring creates accountability pressure through exposure of violations

that might otherwise remain undocumented.

92
Legal aid organizations provide crucial support to custodial violence victims navigating

complex accountability systems. Organizations including Human Rights Law Network,

Lawyers Collective, and state legal services authorities offer representation in criminal

proceedings, compensation claims, and accountability processes. This legal support

partially addresses power imbalances between victims and state institutions that might

otherwise prevent effective pursuit of remedies.

Analysis by the National Law University Delhi examining outcomes in custodial

violence cases found that victims with NGO legal support were approximately 2.5 times

more likely to secure compensation and twice as likely to see criminal charges filed

against accused officers compared to those without such support. This pattern highlights

the importance of legal assistance in navigating procedural complexities and

overcoming institutional resistance to accountability.

Civil society advocacy has proven particularly effective in pushing for systemic reforms

beyond individual cases. Organizations including the Commonwealth Human Rights

Initiative and Multiple Action Research Group have developed evidence-based reform

proposals addressing custodial practices, monitoring mechanisms, and accountability

frameworks. This policy advocacy translates documentation and case experience into

concrete reform agendas that address structural dimensions of custodial violence.

The impact of such advocacy is evident in several reform initiatives. The 2005

amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code incorporating elements of the D.K. Basu

guidelines followed sustained civil society campaigns highlighting implementation

gaps in the original judicial directives. Similarly, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017,

which includes specific protections for persons with mental illness in custody,

incorporated recommendations from disability rights organizations based on

93
documented patterns of abuse. These examples demonstrate how civil society advocacy

can translate ground-level documentation into legislative and policy reforms.

Community monitoring initiatives represent an emerging approach to custodial

accountability through structured citizen oversight of detention practices. Models

including Police Mitras (Maharashtra), Friends of Police (Tamil Nadu), and community

visitor programs at police stations enable civilian observation of custody conditions and

treatment. While still limited in scale, these initiatives create direct community

engagement with police accountability rather than relying exclusively on formal

institutions.

Evaluation of the Police Mitra program in Maharashtra by the Tata Institute of Social

Sciences found that police stations with active community monitors reported

approximately 30% fewer complaints regarding procedural violations during arrest and

detention compared to stations without such monitoring. This preliminary evidence

suggests potential for community oversight to function as a preventive mechanism by

creating regular external observation of previously closed institutional spaces.

Media and civil society organizations face significant challenges in fulfilling their

custodial justice roles, including resource constraints, access limitations, and safety

concerns. Journalists investigating police misconduct frequently report harassment,

intimidation, and obstruction, particularly in rural areas where local media often

depends on police sources for routine crime reporting. These pressures create

disincentives for sustained investigation of custodial abuses outside major urban

centers.

Similarly, civil society organizations face increasing funding constraints and regulatory

requirements that limit their operational capacity. Changes to the Foreign Contribution

94
Regulation Act have particularly affected human rights organizations working on

custody issues, with several prominent organizations losing access to international

funding sources. These resource constraints affect documentation capacity, legal

support availability, and advocacy sustainability.

Access barriers present another significant challenge, with police stations, lock-ups,

and interrogation rooms remaining largely closed spaces resistant to external scrutiny.

Right to information requests regarding custodial practices face high rejection rates,

with approximately 65% of applications regarding custodial deaths denied on security

grounds according to research by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. These

information barriers limit the effectiveness of documentation efforts by restricting

access to critical evidence.

Despite these challenges, media and civil society engagement remains essential to

India's custodial justice ecosystem, compensating for limitations in formal oversight

mechanisms through independent documentation, victim support, and reform advocacy.

The complementary functioning of these non-state actors alongside judicial and

institutional mechanisms creates a more comprehensive accountability framework than

would exist through formal systems alone.

6.4 Comparative Analysis of International Best Practices

International experience offers valuable insights for strengthening custodial justice in

India through models that have successfully addressed similar challenges in diverse

contexts. Comparative analysis reveals several promising approaches to enhancing

accountability and transparency that could inform Indian reform efforts while

respecting contextual differences.

95
Independent investigation mechanisms represent a particularly significant model,

addressing the fundamental conflict of interest in police investigating themselves. The

United Kingdom's Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) exemplifies this

approach through statutorily mandated independent investigation of serious police

misconduct, including all deaths during or following police contact. The IOPC's

operational independence is secured through civilian leadership, dedicated non-police

investigators, and statutory powers to access evidence and compel testimony.

Analysis of the IOPC model by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative identified

several transferable elements for the Indian context, including mandatory referral

requirements for custodial deaths, statutory powers to secure evidence, and

operationally independent investigation teams. While complete separation from police

backgrounds remains challenging, the IOPC's mixed staffing model—combining

former officers with investigators from other professional backgrounds—provides

potential transition pathways from current approaches.

The South African Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) offers another

relevant model, operating in a post-colonial context with comparable challenges of

police violence and institutional resistance to oversight. IPID's statutory mandate

requires independent investigation of deaths in police custody, with dedicated scene-

of-crime response teams and specialized investigative units focusing exclusively on

cases involving police. Evaluation studies indicate that IPID involvement increases the

likelihood of criminal prosecution by approximately 280% compared to internally

investigated cases.

Particularly relevant for India is IPID's development of satellite offices in high-

complaint areas and mobile teams for rural regions, addressing geographic accessibility

96
challenges similar to those in India. While IPID faces implementation challenges

including resource constraints and political interference, its structural independence and

specialized focus provide useful references for potential Indian models, particularly for

restructuring existing oversight bodies like the NHRC or state PCAs.

Custody notification and monitoring systems represent another important comparative

reference, with Australia's Custody Notification Service (CNS) demonstrating

significant impact in reducing Aboriginal deaths in police custody. This mandatory

system requires police to contact legal aid services immediately when Indigenous

people are taken into custody, enabling early legal intervention, welfare checks, and

independent documentation of detention. Evaluation studies indicate a 90% reduction

in unexplained deaths in police custody within jurisdictions implementing

comprehensive notification systems.

Elements of the CNS model, particularly the immediate third-party notification

requirement and 24-hour legal service availability, appear adaptable to Indian contexts

where similar vulnerability factors affect specific communities. The Commonwealth

Human Rights Initiative's experimental custody notification project in Rajasthan,

modeled partially on the Australian approach, demonstrated feasibility in the Indian

police environment while identifying necessary adaptations for scale implementation.

Technological monitoring of detention facilities represents a third significant

comparative reference, with New Zealand's comprehensive CCTV implementation in

police custody areas providing useful insights. The New Zealand model includes audio-

visual coverage of all custody areas including vehicles used for transport, with footage

automatically retained for 90 days and independently audited through random sampling

by the Independent Police Conduct Authority. This technological infrastructure creates

97
both deterrence through surveillance and evidence preservation for accountability

processes.

Analysis of New Zealand's implementation process identified several transferable

lessons for the Indian context, including phased installation prioritizing high-risk

facilities, clear operational protocols governing footage access and preservation, and

independent audit mechanisms to ensure system functionality. While resource

implications present challenges for comprehensive implementation across India's

approximately 16,000 police stations, the New Zealand experience suggests potential

for targeted deployment prioritizing facilities with historically higher complaint rates.

Training and professionalization approaches offer a fourth comparative reference, with

Norway's police education model demonstrating alternative approaches to developing

custody management competencies. Norwegian police undergo three-year bachelor

degree programs including extensive human rights education, de-escalation techniques,

and custody management modules comprising approximately 15% of total training

time. This educational approach treats custody management as a specialized

professional skill requiring specific competencies rather than an incidental aspect of

policing.

Research comparing training approaches across jurisdictions found significant

correlation between training duration/content and custody outcomes, with jurisdictions

implementing specialized custody management certification reporting approximately

60% lower complaint rates compared to those treating custody as an undifferentiated

police function. These findings suggest potential benefits from professionalizing

custody management as a specialized function within Indian policing, potentially

through dedicated units with enhanced training and certification requirements.

98
Specialized prosecution units for police misconduct cases represent a fifth comparative

reference, with Brazil's specialized prosecutor model demonstrating potential

approaches to addressing challenges in prosecuting custodial abuse. Brazil established

dedicated prosecution units focusing exclusively on police misconduct cases, with

specialized prosecutors developing expertise in overcoming evidentiary challenges

common in custody cases. These units maintain independence from regular prosecutors

who rely on police cooperation for routine cases, reducing potential conflicts of interest.

Evaluation of Brazil's specialized prosecution approach found significantly higher

conviction rates in police abuse cases handled by dedicated units (approximately 35%)

compared to similar cases in the general prosecution system (approximately 8%). While

implementation has been uneven across Brazilian states, the model demonstrates

potential for addressing prosecution reluctance through institutional specialization

rather than individual prosecutor discretion. This approach appears potentially

adaptable to India's prosecution system, which faces similar structural challenges

regarding police cases.

The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman's custody inspection regime offers valuable

insights regarding preventive oversight rather than exclusively reactive accountability.

This system combines regular announced inspections with random unannounced visits

to detention facilities, conducted by teams including medical professionals, legal

experts, and human rights specialists. Inspection reports are publicly released with

mandatory response requirements from responsible agencies, creating transparency

regarding both findings and remedial actions.

The Swedish model's integration of preventive inspection with complaint investigation

creates complementary oversight functions addressing both systemic issues and

99
individual cases. Analysis of inspection impacts found significant correlation between

regular inspection presence and decreased complaint incidence, suggesting preventive

effects beyond specific case resolution. This approach offers potential lessons for

enhancing the preventive functions of India's human rights commissions and other

oversight bodies that currently operate primarily in reactive modes.

Civil society participation mechanisms provide a seventh comparative reference, with

the Philippines' People's Law Enforcement Boards (PLEBs) demonstrating models for

structured community involvement in police accountability. These local civilian boards

include representatives from civil society organizations, legal professionals, and

community members, with authority to conduct hearings on police misconduct

complaints and recommend disciplinary action. The boards provide accessible

community-based accountability forums operating alongside more formal national

mechanisms.

Research on PLEB functioning indicates uneven implementation but significant

potential, with boards in areas with strong civil society networks showing greater

independence and effectiveness compared to those in regions with limited

organizational infrastructure. This pattern suggests that effective civil society

participation requires both formal authority and organizational capacity, with

implications for potential adaptation to Indian contexts where civil society development

varies significantly across regions.

Data transparency frameworks represent an eighth comparative reference, with

Denmark's mandatory custodial data publication system demonstrating potential

approaches to enhancing transparency. Danish police are required to publish quarterly

statistics on arrests, detentions, use of force in custody, and complaints regarding

100
custodial treatment, disaggregated by demographic characteristics and geographic

location. This mandated transparency creates public visibility regarding custodial

practices and enables identification of problematic patterns requiring intervention.

Analysis of transparency effects found that stations with outlier statistics in consecutive

reporting periods were approximately 3.5 times more likely to receive supervisory

intervention compared to those without mandated public reporting, suggesting

accountability effects from data visibility even without formal complaint mechanisms.

This approach could potentially enhance transparency in Indian contexts where basic

custodial data remains difficult to access and inconsistently reported across

jurisdictions.

While these international models offer valuable insights, their adaptation to Indian

contexts requires careful consideration of structural, cultural, and resource differences.

Direct transplantation rarely succeeds, but thoughtful adaptation of core principles to

local conditions can enhance existing accountability frameworks. The most promising

approaches combine multiple mechanisms—independent investigation, custody

notification, technological monitoring, specialized training, transparent data systems—

creating layered accountability structures that compensate for limitations in any single

approach.

101
 CHAPTER VI: TECHNOLOGICAL
SOLUTIONS AND MODERNIZATION

102
CHAPTER VI: TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS AND MODERNIZATION

7.1 Digital Monitoring Systems

Technology offers transformative potential for enhancing transparency in custodial

settings through continuous documentation, objective evidence preservation, and

reduced reliance on contradictory human testimony. Digital monitoring systems

represent one of the most promising technological interventions for custodial justice

reform, creating visibility in spaces historically characterized by opacity and limited

external observation.

Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) systems in police stations and lock-ups have

emerged as a primary technological intervention following the Supreme Court's

directive in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020). The Court mandated

installation of CCTV cameras with night vision capability and audio recording in all

police stations, covering all entry and exit points, main gates, lock-ups, corridors, lobby

areas, and areas outside lock-ups. This comprehensive coverage seeks to eliminate

"blind spots" where abuse might occur without documentation.

Implementation status varies significantly across states following this directive.

According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, approximately 70% of police stations

nationwide had installed some form of CCTV system by early 2023, though compliance

with specific requirements regarding audio capability, night vision, and comprehensive

coverage remained inconsistent. States including Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and

Gujarat reported higher implementation rates (above 85%) while states including Bihar,

Uttar Pradesh, and Jharkhand reported lower compliance (below 60%).

Pilot studies examining CCTV impact suggest significant potential benefits when

properly implemented. Research by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

103
comparing custody practices in 15 police stations with comprehensive CCTV coverage

against 15 stations without such systems found approximately 40% fewer complaints

regarding procedural violations and 35% fewer allegations of physical abuse in stations

with functional cameras. These preliminary findings suggest both deterrent effects and

enhanced evidence availability for accountability processes.

The preventive impact appears particularly strong for procedural violations including

failure to inform family members, denial of medical attention, and unauthorized

interrogation during late hours. Station observations documented significantly higher

compliance with custodial procedures in monitored areas compared to unmonitored

spaces within the same facilities, suggesting behavioral changes when officers know

their actions are being recorded.

However, implementation challenges limit the effectiveness of CCTV systems as

accountability mechanisms. Technical issues including non-functional cameras, poor

image quality, limited storage capacity, and inadequate maintenance create gaps in

coverage that undermine the system's integrity. A Commonwealth Human Rights

Initiative audit of CCTV implementation in 60 police stations across six states found

that approximately 30% of installed systems had significant functionality issues, with

cameras non-operational, missing audio capability, or lacking night vision as required

by the Court.

Operational protocols governing footage access, preservation, and review represent

another critical challenge. In many jurisdictions, footage remains under exclusive

police control without independent access mechanisms or audit requirements. This

arrangement creates potential conflicts of interest, as the same institution being

monitored controls evidence that might document misconduct. Without independent

104
access protocols or automatic preservation requirements for incidents involving

complaints, the accountability potential of CCTV systems remains limited.

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative's research on footage access found that

approximately 70% of Right to Information applications requesting CCTV footage in

complaint cases were denied, typically citing ongoing investigation or security

concerns. This access limitation significantly constrains the transparency value of

CCTV systems by restricting independent verification of contested factual narratives

regarding custody events.

Storage duration represents another significant implementation challenge. While the

Supreme Court directed minimum 18-month preservation of footage, resource

constraints and storage capacity limitations result in much shorter retention in practice,

typically ranging from 15-90 days. This limited preservation period creates

accountability gaps when complaints are filed after footage deletion, effectively

negating the evidentiary value of the system for cases not immediately reported.

Privacy and dignity concerns require careful balancing in CCTV implementation,

particularly regarding coverage of toilet and washing facilities within lock-ups. The

Supreme Court acknowledged these concerns while emphasizing that privacy could not

justify creating monitoring gaps in detention spaces. Developing appropriate technical

and procedural solutions—such as visual blurring of sensitive footage during review

while preserving original recordings—remains an ongoing challenge in balancing

transparency with dignity concerns.

Body-worn cameras represent another promising digital monitoring technology,

creating documentation of police-citizen interactions beyond fixed station

environments. While primarily deployed in patrol contexts internationally, body

105
cameras have particular relevance for custodial justice by documenting arrest

procedures, transport to stations, and interactions within facilities, potentially capturing

events that fixed CCTV systems might miss.

Pilot implementations in Kerala, Telangana, and Maharashtra since 2019 provide

preliminary insights regarding feasibility and impact in Indian contexts. The Kerala

Police's implementation involving 100 body cameras across 10 police stations found

significant reductions in both citizen complaints (approximately 35% decrease) and use

of force incidents (approximately 40% decrease) compared to baseline periods without

cameras. These findings align with international research suggesting both behavioral

modification and enhanced evidence availability from body camera deployment.

However, body cameras face implementation challenges similar to fixed CCTV

systems, including activation compliance, footage access, and preservation protocols.

Without clear operational requirements regarding mandatory activation during all

custodial interactions, the technology's accountability potential remains limited.

Similarly, without independent access mechanisms for footage review, the systems

effectively function as police-controlled evidence rather than transparent accountability

mechanisms.

Digital custody records represent a third technological intervention with significant

potential for enhancing custodial transparency. Digital systems replace traditional

manual registers with electronic documentation of all custody events, creating

comprehensive chronological records of detainee status, medical condition, visitors,

interrogation periods, and other significant events. These systems enhance

accountability by creating unalterable time-stamped documentation less susceptible to

retrospective modification than paper records.

106
Implementations in Delhi, Hyderabad, and Chandigarh demonstrate potential benefits

through standardized documentation, automated time-stamping, and integrated medical

examination records. The Delhi Police's eCustody system, operational since 2018,

creates digital documentation accessible to supervising officers in real-time, enabling

remote monitoring of custody status across stations. The system automatically

generates alerts for approaching custody time limits, medical examination

requirements, and production deadlines, potentially preventing procedural violations

through automated notifications.

Research by the Indian Police Foundation comparing custody documentation before

and after digital system implementation found significant improvements in procedural

compliance, with approximately 60% reduction in deadline violations and 45% increase

in medical examination documentation. These findings suggest that technological

enforcement of procedural requirements may enhance compliance more effectively

than policy directives alone through automated tracking and accountability

mechanisms.

Integration of these disparate technological systems—CCTV, body cameras, and digital

records—into comprehensive custody monitoring platforms represents an emerging

approach with significant potential. The Tamil Nadu Police's integrated custody

management system, implemented following the Jayaraj-Bennix case, combines digital

documentation with audiovisual monitoring and automated notifications to supervisory

officers. This integrated approach creates multiple documentation streams that can be

cross-referenced to verify custody events from complementary perspectives.

While these technological solutions offer significant potential for enhancing custodial

transparency, their effectiveness ultimately depends on implementation quality,

107
operational protocols, and integration with broader accountability frameworks.

Technology alone cannot transform custodial practices without accompanying

institutional commitment to transparency, appropriate operational protocols governing

usage, and mechanisms for independent access and review. When these elements align,

however, digital monitoring systems can significantly enhance custodial transparency

by creating objective documentation in spaces historically characterized by limited

external visibility.

7.2 Forensic Modernization

The evidentiary challenges in establishing custodial violence highlight the critical

importance of scientific investigation methods that reduce reliance on contradictory

testimony or confession-based evidence. Forensic modernization represents a

promising pathway for both preventing custodial abuse by reducing pressure for

confessions and enhancing accountability by providing objective evidence when

violations occur.

India's forensic infrastructure has expanded significantly but remains inadequate for

comprehensive scientific investigation of criminal cases. According to the Directorate

of Forensic Science Services, India has 7 Central Forensic Science Laboratories, 31

State Forensic Science Laboratories, and 529 Mobile Forensic Units, providing

scientific investigation support of varying capabilities. However, analysis by the

National Crime Records Bureau indicates that only approximately 10-15% of serious

criminal cases currently receive comprehensive forensic examination, creating

significant capacity gaps.

These infrastructure limitations contribute directly to custodial abuse by creating

investigative environments where confessions and witness testimony remain the

108
predominant evidence forms despite their legal inadmissibility. Research by the Indian

Police Foundation examining investigation practices across 20 districts found

significant correlation between forensic laboratory access and reported custodial

violence, with districts lacking timely forensic services reporting approximately three

times higher rates of alleged coercive interrogation compared to districts with

functional forensic support.

The Bureau of Police Research and Development's analysis of investigation practices

similarly found that approximately 70% of investigating officers identified inadequate

forensic support as a primary factor influencing reliance on confession-based

investigation methods. This pattern creates a direct relationship between forensic

capacity limitations and custodial vulnerability, as scientific evidence deficits translate

into pressure for testimonial evidence often obtained through coercive means.

Beyond infrastructure limitations, training gaps further constrain scientific

investigation capacity. Analysis of police training curricula by the National Police

Academy found that investigating officers typically receive only 3-5% of their training

hours in forensic methods and evidence collection, creating significant knowledge

deficits regarding available scientific techniques. This limited forensic awareness

contributes to underutilization of existing capabilities and perpetuates reliance on

traditional investigation methods including extensive interrogation.

Several promising initiatives demonstrate potential pathways for addressing these

limitations. The Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) project

has expanded digital evidence collection and management capabilities across police

stations nationwide, creating infrastructure for scientific evidence documentation and

analysis. The project includes standardized crime scene photography protocols, digital

109
chain of custody documentation, and integration with forensic laboratories, potentially

enhancing scientific evidence reliability.

The Directorate of Forensic Science Services has established Regional Forensic

Science Laboratories to address geographic disparities in access, with specialized

mobile units providing crime scene examination in remote areas. These mobile units,

equipped with essential forensic tools for fingerprint development, biological fluid

detection, and trace evidence collection, enable scientific evidence collection even in

areas without permanent laboratory facilities, potentially reducing reliance on

confession-based investigation in underserved regions.

Specialized forensic training programs have expanded through initiatives including the

National Forensic Sciences University (formerly Gujarat Forensic Sciences University)

and the Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan National Institute of Criminology and

Forensic Science. These institutions have trained approximately 12,000 police officers

in specialized forensic techniques since 2015, gradually expanding the pool of

scientifically trained investigators capable of conducting evidence-based investigations

without extensive reliance on interrogation.

Medical forensic capacity specifically relevant to custodial violence documentation has

improved through standardized protocols for examination of torture allegations. The

Istanbul Protocol (Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) has been

incorporated into training for medical officers in several states, enhancing their capacity

to document injuries consistent with alleged torture. This specialized medical

documentation creates more reliable evidence in accountability proceedings compared

to generic injury descriptions that might be attributed to alternative causes.

110
Implementation remains inconsistent, however, with research by the Commonwealth

Human Rights Initiative finding that only approximately 30% of medical officers

examining detainees had received specific training in torture documentation. Their

analysis of medical reports in custodial violence cases found that approximately 65%

contained inadequate documentation regarding injury causation, pattern analysis, or

consistency with alleged torture methods, limiting their evidentiary value in

accountability proceedings.

DNA analysis capabilities have expanded significantly, with 28 DNA testing

laboratories now operational across India compared to just 4 in 2010. This expansion

creates potential for more reliable identification in criminal cases, reducing pressure for

confessions to establish identity. However, capacity limitations remain significant, with

testing backlogs exceeding six months in many laboratories and approximately 65% of

serious crimes involving biological evidence not receiving DNA analysis due to

capacity constraints.

Digital forensics represents a rapidly expanding capability with particular relevance for

custodial accountability. The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre has established

specialized digital forensic laboratories in all states, creating capacity for analysis of

digital evidence including CCTV footage, mobile phone data, and social media

communications. These capabilities enhance investigation options without extensive

interrogation while potentially providing independent evidence sources when custodial

abuse allegations arise.

The expanding availability of scientific methods creates potential for fundamental

transformation of investigation practices from confession-centered approaches toward

evidence-based methodologies. This shift would address a root cause of custodial

111
violence by reducing the institutional incentives for coercive interrogation. However,

realizing this potential requires addressing both capacity limitations and cultural

resistance to investigation modernization.

Research by the Bureau of Police Research and Development identifies several barriers

to forensic utilization beyond infrastructure limitations, including procedural delays,

evidence admissibility concerns, and institutional resistance to changing traditional

practices. Their analysis suggests that even where forensic services are available,

investigating officers often default to familiar interrogation-based methods rather than

navigating unfamiliar scientific procedures. This pattern highlights that modernization

requires both capability development and cultural change in investigation approaches.

Cost considerations represent another significant barrier to comprehensive forensic

modernization. Analysis by the National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science

estimates comprehensive scientific investigation costs approximately 3-5 times more

than traditional methods for typical criminal cases, creating resource allocation

challenges in budget-constrained environments. Without dedicated funding for

scientific methods, departments often default to lower-cost investigation approaches

despite their potential relationship to custodial abuse.

Despite these challenges, forensic modernization represents one of the most promising

pathways for reducing custodial violence by addressing its systemic causes rather than

merely enhancing post-violation accountability. By creating viable investigation

alternatives to confession-based methods, scientific capability development addresses

the institutional incentives that often drive coercive interrogation practices.

7.3 Training and Capacity Building

112
Transforming custodial practices ultimately requires changing the knowledge, skills,

and attitudes of law enforcement personnel who manage detention. Training and

capacity building initiatives represent essential investments for institutionalizing rights-

respecting approaches to custody management through professional development rather

than merely imposing external constraints.

Current police training regarding custody management reveals significant limitations

in both duration and content. Analysis of basic training curricula across state police

academies by the Bureau of Police Research and Development found that custody

management typically receives only 2-4% of total training hours for new recruits, with

primary emphasis on procedural requirements rather than rights protection or

professional ethics. This limited allocation reflects traditional prioritization of law and

order functions over custodial responsibilities despite the significant rights implications

of detention management.

Content analysis of training materials reveals concerning patterns regarding custodial

attitudes. Research by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative examining training

modules across 10 state police academies found that custody content predominantly

emphasized security concerns and escape prevention, with limited attention to detainee

welfare, dignity considerations, or vulnerability factors. This security-dominated

framing potentially reinforces perspectives of detainees as threats requiring control

rather than individuals retaining fundamental rights despite detention.

Comparative analysis highlights the disparity between Indian approaches and

international best practices. Police training in countries including Denmark, Japan, and

Canada allocates approximately 8-12% of basic training hours specifically to custody

management, with emphasis on both procedural requirements and ethical frameworks

113
for detention. These approaches frame custody management as a specialized

professional function requiring specific competencies rather than an incidental aspect

of general policing.

Several promising initiatives demonstrate potential for enhancing custody-specific

training in Indian contexts. The Bureau of Police Research and Development has

developed specialized custody management modules focused specifically on

constitutional standards, vulnerability assessment, and prevention of custodial violence.

These modules have been incorporated into training at the National Police Academy

and several state academies, potentially creating more standardized approaches to

custody education.

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative's "Custody Managers" program,

implemented in partnership with state police departments in Maharashtra, Rajasthan,

and Karnataka, provides specialized training for officers with lock-up management

responsibilities. This program emphasizes both procedural compliance and broader

human rights principles through scenario-based learning and practical skills

development. Evaluation of participating stations found approximately 40% reduction

in procedural complaints compared to similar stations without specialized custody

training.

Human rights education represents another significant dimension of capacity building

for custodial justice. The National Human Rights Commission has developed

standardized human rights modules for police training, including specific components

addressing torture prevention, detention standards, and accountability mechanisms.

These modules have been incorporated into curricula at approximately 60% of state

police training institutions, though implementation quality varies significantly.

114
Research by the Indian Police Foundation evaluating human rights training

effectiveness found significant correlation between training methodology and impact

on custodial attitudes. Traditional lecture-based approaches showed limited attitudinal

change, while experiential methods including role-playing exercises, case studies, and

simulation activities demonstrated more significant impacts on perspective-taking and

appreciation of detainee vulnerability. This pattern suggests that effective human rights

education requires not merely content delivery but pedagogical approaches that

cultivate empathy and perspective-taking capacities.

Modern interrogation training represents a particularly important dimension of

custodial capacity building, directly addressing incentives for coercive methods by

developing alternative skills for investigative interviewing. The Bureau of Police

Research and Development has adapted international investigative interviewing models

emphasizing rapport-building, cognitive interviewing techniques, and strategic

questioning rather than confession-oriented approaches. These methods have been

introduced through specialized courses for investigating officers, potentially creating

alternatives to traditional interrogation paradigms.

Comparative research demonstrates the efficacy of these alternative approaches.

Analysis by the Centre for Criminology and Public Policy comparing investigation

outcomes between traditionally trained officers and those trained in modern

interviewing techniques found that the latter group obtained approximately 35% more

actionable intelligence while generating 60% fewer allegations of coercion. These

findings suggest that professional interview skills development can enhance

investigative effectiveness while reducing incentives for abusive practices.

115
The National Police Academy's "Interrogation to Interviewing" transition program

represents a structured attempt to shift institutional culture regarding custodial

questioning. This program, delivered to mid-career officers with investigation

responsibilities, explicitly addresses the psychological and institutional factors

underlying coercive interrogation while developing alternative skillsets for effective

information gathering. Preliminary evaluation in participating districts shows

promising shifts in investigation documentation, with significantly higher compliance

with recording requirements and reduced reliance on confession evidence.

Mental health awareness represents another important training dimension, particularly

relevant for identifying and appropriately responding to vulnerable detainees. The

National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences has developed specialized

training modules for police regarding mental health identification, crisis de-escalation,

and appropriate accommodations for detainees with mental health conditions. These

modules have been delivered to approximately 15,000 officers across eight states,

potentially enhancing capacity to manage vulnerable detainees without escalation to

force.

Research by the Centre for Mental Health Law and Policy evaluating training impact

found significant improvements in officer knowledge regarding mental health

identification (average 40% knowledge increase) and reported confidence in managing

mental health crises without force (average 35% confidence increase). However,

sustainability of these improvements without institutional support remains challenging,

with knowledge retention declining significantly without reinforcement through

supervision and operational policies.

116
Gender sensitivity training specifically addressing women in custody has expanded

through initiatives including the Bureau of Police Research and Development's "Gender

Sensitization in Policing" program and UN Women's partnership with state police

academies. These programs address the particular vulnerabilities of women detainees,

appropriate search procedures, gender-specific health needs, and prevention of sexual

harassment or assault in custody. Implementation now reaches approximately 70% of

new recruits across states, though refresher training for existing personnel remains

limited.

Evaluation by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences examining gender training impact

found significant improvements in procedural compliance regarding women detainees

in stations with comprehensive training (approximately 60% higher compliance with

gender-specific requirements) compared to those without specialized training.

However, implementation remained challenged by infrastructure limitations, with

many stations lacking appropriate facilities for women detainees despite improved

officer awareness of requirements.

Training for medical personnel examining detainees represents another important

capacity-building dimension. The National Human Rights Commission has developed

specialized protocols for medical examination of torture allegations based on the

Istanbul Protocol standards, with training programs delivered to medical officers at

district hospitals and primary health centers. These programs enhance capacity for

appropriate documentation of injuries potentially resulting from custodial

mistreatment, creating more reliable evidence for accountability proceedings.

Research by Physicians for Human Rights evaluating medical documentation in

custodial cases found significant quality improvements following specialized training,

117
with reports from trained personnel approximately three times more likely to include

precise injury documentation, pattern analysis, and assessment of consistency with

alleged causes. This improved documentation creates more reliable evidence for

accountability processes while potentially deterring abuse through enhanced detection

capability.

While these initiatives demonstrate promising approaches to capacity building,

sustainability and institutional embedding remain significant challenges. Research by

the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative examining training impact sustainability

found that behavioral improvements typically declined significantly within 12-18

months without supportive institutional factors including supervisory reinforcement,

performance evaluation criteria incorporating custody standards, and organizational

culture change beyond individual skills development.

This pattern suggests that effective capacity building requires integration with broader

institutional reforms rather than standalone training initiatives. Training programs

disconnected from accountability mechanisms, supervision frameworks, or

performance incentives demonstrate limited sustained impact on custodial practices. By

contrast, capacity building initiatives embedded within comprehensive institutional

reforms show greater potential for transforming custody approaches through

professional development supported by structural alignment.

Developing specialized custody management as a distinct professional track within

policing represents a promising approach to sustainable capacity building. Rather than

treating custody as an undifferentiated aspect of general policing, this approach

recognizes detention management as a specialized function requiring specific

knowledge, skills, and ethical frameworks. Several state police organizations including

118
Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Maharashtra have begun implementing specialized custody

units with dedicated personnel, enhanced training, and specific operational protocols

for detention management.

Preliminary evaluation of these specialized approaches suggests promising results, with

dedicated custody units demonstrating approximately 50% fewer procedural

complaints and significantly higher compliance with documentation requirements

compared to traditional arrangements. These improvements suggest potential benefits

from professionalizing custody management as a specialized function within broader

policing structures, creating institutional capacity and expertise specifically focused on

rights-compliant detention practices.

7.4 Psychological Aspects of Policing

The psychological dimensions of custodial practices represent an important but

frequently overlooked aspect of reform efforts. Understanding the psychological factors

that enable, normalize, or constrain abusive practices provides insights for developing

more effective interventions targeting root causes rather than merely symptoms of

custodial violence.

Research on the psychology of authority in custodial settings reveals concerning

patterns regarding normalization of coercive practices. Studies by the Tata Institute of

Social Sciences examining police attitudes toward custody found that approximately

60% of officers interviewed viewed some degree of physical pressure as acceptable

during interrogation, particularly for serious crimes or "hardened criminals." This

normalization reflects psychological processes including moral disengagement,

dehumanization of detainees, and diffusion of responsibility within institutional

hierarchies.

119
The concept of moral disengagement, developed by psychologist Albert Bandura, helps

explain how individuals normally constrained by moral standards can engage in

harmful conduct without apparent psychological conflict. Research by the Centre for

Criminology and Public Policy applying this framework to police interviews identified

several moral disengagement mechanisms operating in custodial contexts, including:

1. Moral justification (reframing harmful acts as serving social purposes: "We

need to use pressure to solve serious crimes")

2. Euphemistic labeling (using sanitized language: "questioning techniques" rather

than "torture")

3. Advantageous comparison (contrasting actions with worse alternatives: "We

only used mild force, not severe beating")

4. Displacement of responsibility (attributing actions to authority: "We were

following orders/expectations")

5. Diffusion of responsibility (distributing culpability across multiple actors:

"Everyone does it")

6. Disregarding consequences (minimizing harm: "They're criminals, they can

handle it")

7. Dehumanization (viewing victims as lacking full humanity: "Terrorists don't

deserve rights")

These psychological mechanisms enable otherwise conscientious officers to participate

in or tolerate abusive practices by creating cognitive separation between actions and

moral standards. Addressing these psychological processes requires interventions

120
beyond merely establishing rules or enhancing monitoring, focusing instead on the

cognitive frameworks that enable rule violation despite formal prohibitions.

Dehumanization represents a particularly significant psychological process in custodial

contexts. Research by the Indian Institute of Psychology examining language patterns

in police descriptions of detainees found significant differences based on offense

categories and social backgrounds. Individuals accused of terrorism, sexual offenses,

or crimes against police were described using significantly more dehumanizing

language, with reduced acknowledgment of their emotional states, family connections,

or individual circumstances. This linguistic dehumanization correlates with greater

acceptance of harsh treatment as justifiable or necessary.

Similar patterns appear regarding socially marginalized detainees, with research

documenting greater use of categorical rather than individualized descriptions for

lower-caste, tribal, or religious minority detainees. This categorical perception reduces

recognition of individual suffering or psychological harm, potentially enabling harsher

treatment through diminished empathic response. Addressing these dehumanization

patterns requires interventions specifically targeting perspective-taking and

individuation rather than merely establishing procedural requirements.

Authoritarianism represents another relevant psychological factor, with research

finding correlations between authoritarian personality traits and acceptance of custodial

violence. Studies using standardized psychological measures including the Right-Wing

Authoritarianism Scale found that officers scoring higher on authoritarianism reported

significantly greater acceptance of coercive interrogation methods and viewed custodial

regulations as unnecessary constraints rather than essential safeguards. These findings

suggest that psychological predispositions may influence receptivity to rights-based

121
approaches to custody, requiring targeted interventions addressing underlying

attitudinal factors.

Institutional socialization processes significantly influence psychological approaches

to custody through both formal training and informal cultural transmission. Research

examining police academy socialization found that recruits typically demonstrated

declining empathy scores and increasing acceptance of coercive methods over the

course of training, suggesting that institutional socialization may actually reduce rather

than enhance rights-protective psychological orientations. This pattern highlights the

importance of examining socialization processes rather than merely formal curriculum

content when assessing training impacts.

Informal organizational culture appears particularly influential in shaping

psychological approaches to custody. Ethnographic research by the Centre for Social

Justice examining station-level dynamics found that new officers typically adopted the

custodial practices of their immediate supervisors and colleagues regardless of formal

training or policy directives. Stations with supervisors who explicitly rejected coercive

methods showed significantly lower incidence of abuse allegations compared to those

where supervisors implicitly accepted or explicitly encouraged such approaches. This

pattern highlights the critical importance of leadership modeling in shaping

psychological approaches to detention.

The concept of ethical fading—the process by which ethical dimensions of decisions

become obscured in favor of other considerations—helps explain how officers may

engage in clearly prohibited behaviors despite awareness of rules. Research applying

this framework to custodial settings found that immediate operational pressures

including crime solution expectations, efficiency demands, and productivity metrics

122
frequently overshadowed ethical considerations in decision-making. This

psychological process highlights the importance of embedding ethical frameworks

within operational contexts rather than treating them as separate considerations.

Several promising interventions address these psychological dimensions of custodial

practices. The Bureau of Police Research and Development's "ethical policing"

program incorporates psychological approaches including perspective-taking exercises,

moral dilemma discussions, and reflective practice techniques. These approaches

specifically target the psychological mechanisms enabling moral disengagement by

strengthening ethical salience and personal connection to moral standards in operational

contexts.

Evaluation of this program across three states found that participating officers

demonstrated significantly higher ethical awareness in custody scenarios and expressed

greater personal responsibility for detainee treatment compared to control groups.

Importantly, these effects appeared most significant when entire units participated

together rather than individual officers in isolation, suggesting the importance of

addressing group dynamics rather than merely individual psychology.

Perspective-taking interventions specifically addressing dehumanization have shown

promising results in experimental implementations. Programs incorporating direct

interaction with former detainees in training contexts, personal narrative engagement,

and role-reversal exercises demonstrated significant impacts on officer attitudes

regarding detainee experiences and vulnerability. Officers participating in these

interventions showed approximately 30% increase in recognition of detainees'

psychological states and family contexts compared to control groups, potentially

reducing dehumanization tendencies.

123
Psychological resilience programs addressing stress management represent another

promising approach. Research consistently identifies occupational stress as a

significant factor in excessive force incidents, with officers experiencing burnout or

traumatic stress demonstrating higher rates of aggressive behavior in custody situations.

Interventions including mindfulness training, stress reduction techniques, and

psychological support services have demonstrated potential for reducing stress-related

aggression while enhancing professional decision-making capacity in high-pressure

situations.

The Tamil Nadu Police's psychological wellness program, implemented following

several high-profile custodial death cases, provides regular psychological assessment,

stress management training, and confidential counseling services for officers with

custody responsibilities. Preliminary evaluation indicates approximately 25% reduction

in use of force incidents in participating stations compared to similar stations without

such psychological support. These findings suggest that addressing officer

psychological wellness may enhance custodial compliance through improved

emotional regulation and decision-making capacity.

Leadership development programs incorporating psychological dimensions of custody

management represent another promising approach. The National Police Academy's

"Ethical Leadership in Custody" program specifically prepares supervisory officers to

shape station-level psychological approaches to detention through explicit norm-

setting, behavioral modeling, and intervention in problematic practices. This approach

recognizes the critical influence of leadership in establishing psychological frameworks

that either enable or constrain abusive practices.

124
Evaluation of stations under graduates of this program found significantly higher

procedural compliance rates (approximately 45% higher) and lower complaint

incidence (approximately 35% lower) compared to similar stations under supervisors

without specialized training. These differences appeared most pronounced for stations

with historically higher complaint rates, suggesting particular benefit for problematic

environments where psychological transformation of custody approaches is most

needed.

While these psychological interventions demonstrate promising approaches,

sustainable impact requires integration with broader institutional reforms rather than

isolated implementation. Psychological interventions disconnected from accountability

mechanisms, performance evaluation systems, or organizational incentive structures

typically show limited sustained impact. By contrast, approaches that align

psychological interventions with institutional systems demonstrate greater potential for

transforming the cognitive frameworks underlying custodial practices.

The most promising approach appears to be integration of psychological interventions

within comprehensive custody management reforms rather than addressing

psychological factors in isolation. By simultaneously transforming institutional

structures, operational procedures, technological monitoring, and psychological

frameworks, reform initiatives can address both the enabling contexts and cognitive

processes that facilitate custodial abuse. This integrated approach recognizes that

sustainable change requires alignment between institutional environments and

individual psychology rather than focusing exclusively on either dimension.

125
CHAPTER VIII: CHALLENGES AND
STRATEGIES, CONCLUSION,
RECOMMENDATIONS

126
CHAPTER VIII: CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES, CONCLUSION,

RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Challenges to Reform Implementation

The path to meaningful custodial justice reform in India is obstructed by multiple

interconnected challenges that have historically impeded the translation of normative

standards into operational realities. Understanding these implementation barriers is

essential for developing effective reform strategies that address root causes rather than

merely symptoms of custodial violence.

Political resistance represents a fundamental challenge to reform implementation.

Police organizations remain valuable political instruments for governing parties,

creating reluctance to establish truly independent accountability mechanisms that might

constrain their utility for political purposes. The halting implementation of Supreme

Court directives in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) illustrates this dynamic, with

states frequently establishing paper compliance through diluted legislation while

preserving executive control over police functioning.

Analysis by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative found that 17 states have

enacted police legislation purportedly implementing the Supreme Court's directives,

but these acts typically preserve political control through provisions including direct

operational oversight by political executives, discretionary appointment and transfer

authority, and limited independence for accountability bodies. This pattern suggests that

political utility continues to outweigh rights protection in institutional design priorities

across partisan lines.

Institutional resistance within police organizations presents another significant

implementation challenge. Reforms perceived as externally imposed constraints on

127
operational autonomy frequently face passive non-compliance or active subversion by

implementing institutions. This resistance manifests through various mechanisms

including procedural formalism (following the letter but not spirit of reforms), selective

implementation of less threatening components, and development of workarounds that

preserve existing practices while creating appearance of compliance.

Research by the Bureau of Police Research and Development examining

implementation of D.K. Basu guidelines across states found that approximately 65% of

police stations maintained the required documentation but primarily as post-hoc

paperwork rather than operational guides for custody management. This procedural

formalism creates paper compliance without substantively changing custodial

practices, effectively neutralizing reform impact through implementation distortion.

Resource constraints significantly limit implementation capacity across reform

dimensions. Technological monitoring systems require substantial investment in

equipment, maintenance, and storage infrastructure. Forensic modernization

necessitates laboratory facilities, scientific personnel, and ongoing operational funding.

Training initiatives demand instructor capacity, curriculum development, and officer

time allocation. Without dedicated financial resources, reform mandates frequently

become unfunded aspirations rather than operational realities.

Budgetary analysis by the Indian Police Foundation found that less than 3% of police

modernization funds were specifically allocated to custody management improvements

between 2015-2020, despite numerous reform directives in this area. This resource

allocation pattern creates implementation gaps where mandated reforms lack financial

support for effective operationalization, resulting in partial or symbolic implementation

rather than comprehensive transformation.

128
Coordination challenges across institutional boundaries further complicate

implementation. Custodial justice reforms typically require collaboration across

multiple institutions including police departments, prosecution services, judiciary,

medical establishments, human rights commissions, and civil society organizations.

Without effective coordination mechanisms, these diverse stakeholders often operate in

isolation, creating implementation gaps at institutional interfaces where responsibilities

intersect but coordination remains limited.

The implementation of mandatory medical examination requirements illustrates this

challenge. While police departments, medical facilities, and judicial magistrates all

share responsibility for ensuring proper examination of detainees, research by the

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative found that only approximately 30% of

districts had established clear protocols for inter-institutional coordination regarding

these examinations. This coordination deficit results in implementation failures despite

individual institutional awareness of requirements.

Cultural resistance represents perhaps the most fundamental implementation challenge,

as reform initiatives frequently conflict with deeply embedded organizational norms,

values, and practices. Training programs may transmit new knowledge without

changing underlying attitudes toward custodial practices. Accountability mechanisms

may create procedural requirements without transforming fundamental perspectives on

the acceptability of coercive methods. Technological monitoring may modify visible

behavior without changing private attitudes regarding appropriate treatment of

detainees.

Research by the Centre for Social Justice examining attitudinal change following

reform initiatives found that approximately 65% of officers interviewed expressed

129
cynicism regarding reform motivations, viewing new requirements as politically

motivated constraints rather than legitimate professionalization measures. This

perception creates resistance to internalization of reform values, limiting

implementation to compliance behaviors rather than genuine normative change.

Capacity limitations present significant implementation barriers, particularly in rural

and under-resourced jurisdictions. Police stations in many districts operate with

significant personnel deficits, inadequate infrastructure, and limited technological

capabilities. These capacity constraints create environments where officers managing

heavy caseloads with minimal resources face substantial challenges implementing

procedural reforms that require additional documentation, monitoring, or operational

steps perceived as burdensome rather than valuable.

The uneven geographic distribution of implementation resources creates concerning

disparities in reform impact. Analysis by the Bureau of Police Research and

Development found that approximately 70% of custody monitoring technology has

been implemented in district headquarters and urban stations, while rural stations with

historically higher complaint rates frequently lack basic infrastructure for reform

implementation. This pattern creates geographic justice gaps where custodial

protections vary significantly based on detention location rather than applying

uniformly across jurisdictions.

Public awareness limitations further constrain reform effectiveness, as procedural

protections and accountability mechanisms remain valuable only to the extent that

citizens understand and assert their rights. Research by the Commonwealth Human

Rights Initiative found that approximately 70% of detainees interviewed had limited or

no awareness of their custodial rights, creating significant gaps between formal

130
protections and practical assertion capabilities. Without complementary public

education, even well-designed reforms may fail to protect vulnerable populations

lacking knowledge to navigate procedural safeguards.

Monitoring deficits represent another significant implementation challenge. Without

systematic data collection, implementation assessment, and compliance verification,

reform initiatives frequently lack evidence regarding their operational status or

effectiveness. This monitoring gap creates accountability deficits for implementation

itself, as reform mandates typically lack consequences for non-implementation or

mechanisms for tracking compliance rates across jurisdictions.

Analysis by the National Law University Delhi examining implementation monitoring

for five major custodial justice reforms found that only one (CCTV installation) had

systematic implementation tracking through the Supreme Court's monitoring

mechanism. The remaining reforms had no centralized tracking system, minimal

reporting requirements, and limited consequences for non-implementation. This

monitoring deficit creates environments where implementation becomes discretionary

rather than mandatory, with limited institutional costs for non-compliance.

8.2 Conclusion and Recommendations

India's custodial justice system reflects a troubling paradox: robust constitutional and

legal protections coexist with persistent patterns of abuse, creating substantial gaps

between normative standards and lived realities for individuals in police custody. This

implementation deficit stems from complex interactions between colonial institutional

legacies, political incentive structures, resource limitations, accountability gaps, and

cultural norms that collectively sustain custodial violence despite formal prohibitions.

131
The historical evolution of India's police system from colonial control mechanisms to

democratic institutions remains incomplete, with organizational structures, operational

practices, and institutional cultures continuing to reflect authoritarian origins rather

than fully embodying constitutional values. This incomplete transformation creates

environments where custodial abuse persists despite legal prohibitions, as institutional

arrangements designed primarily for public control rather than rights protection remain

resistant to reform initiatives.

The legal framework governing custodial justice has progressively expanded through

constitutional interpretation, statutory amendments, and judicial directives, creating

comprehensive formal protections against abuse. However, these normative

developments have not been matched by corresponding institutional transformation,

creating implementation gaps where procedural requirements exist on paper without

effective operationalization in daily practices. This disjunction between law and

practice represents the central challenge for custodial justice reform.

Contemporary patterns of custodial violence reveal troubling dimensions of both

persistence and bias. Despite decades of reform efforts, custodial deaths and torture

continue at disturbing rates, with official statistics likely underrepresenting actual

incidence due to classification and reporting limitations. These abuses

disproportionately affect vulnerable populations including religious minorities,

economically disadvantaged groups, and lower castes, reflecting broader patterns of

social marginalization within the criminal justice system.

Existing accountability mechanisms—including internal disciplinary processes,

judicial oversight, human rights commissions, and police complaints authorities—have

demonstrated limited effectiveness in preventing custodial abuse or ensuring

132
consequences when violations occur. These accountability deficits stem from multiple

factors including conflicts of interest in investigation, evidentiary challenges,

procedural barriers to prosecution, and insufficient independence in oversight bodies.

Without effective accountability, deterrence remains insufficient to prevent violations

despite formal prohibitions.

Technological innovations including CCTV systems, body cameras, and digital custody

records offer promising potential for enhancing transparency in detention settings,

creating objective documentation where historically only contradictory testimony

existed. However, implementation challenges including resource limitations,

operational protocols, and access restrictions have limited the transformative potential

of these technologies. Without appropriate implementation frameworks, technological

solutions risk becoming procedural formalities rather than effective accountability

mechanisms.

Forensic modernization represents a critical pathway for addressing root causes of

custodial violence by reducing investigative reliance on confessions through enhanced

scientific capabilities. By developing alternative evidence sources through modern

forensic methods, this approach addresses institutional incentives for coercive

interrogation rather than merely imposing constraints on existing practices. However,

resource limitations, training gaps, and cultural resistance to investigation

modernization have limited progress in this dimension.

Training and capacity building initiatives can enhance professional approaches to

custody management through knowledge transmission, skills development, and

attitudinal change. However, sustainability challenges, institutional contradictions, and

implementation limitations have frequently undermined training effectiveness, with

133
new knowledge and skills overwhelmed by contradictory institutional incentives,

cultural norms, and operational pressures. Without alignment between training content

and institutional realities, capacity development shows limited lasting impact on

custodial practices.

Based on this comprehensive analysis, the following recommendations address critical

dimensions of custodial justice reform in India:

1. Legislative Reforms

o Enact specific anti-torture legislation aligned with UNCAT

requirements, establishing torture as a distinct criminal offense with

appropriate penalties reflecting its severity.

o Amend Section 197 CrPC to explicitly exclude acts of torture and

custodial violence from the requirement of government sanction for

prosecution.

o Establish statutory requirements for comprehensive custody

documentation, including continuous monitoring, medical examination

protocols, and visitation records.

o Mandate data transparency regarding all aspects of custody including

arrests, detentions, use of force incidents, and complaint outcomes,

disaggregated by demographic characteristics.

2. Institutional Restructuring

o Establish truly independent investigation mechanisms for custodial

violence allegations, with dedicated units comprising personnel outside

police career paths, specialized training, and operational independence.

134
 o Reform Police Complaints Authorities to ensure genuine independence

through civilian leadership, independent investigative capacity,

prosecutorial powers, and protection from political interference.

o Create specialized custody management units within police

departments, with dedicated personnel, enhanced training, and specific

operational protocols for detention management as a distinct

professional function.

o Establish mandatory custody notification systems requiring immediate

information to legal services and family members when individuals

enter police custody.

3. Technological Implementation

o Develop comprehensive technological monitoring systems integrating

CCTV, body cameras, and digital custody records with appropriate

protocols governing operation, footage preservation, and independent

access.

o Establish custody monitoring committees with diverse membership

including judicial officers, medical professionals, and civil society

representatives, with authority to access monitoring systems without

prior notice.

o Create centralized digital custody registries accessible to authorized

oversight bodies, creating visibility regarding detention status and

enabling pattern analysis across jurisdictions.

135
 o Implement automated notification systems for custody time limits,

medical examination requirements, and production deadlines, creating

technological enforcement of procedural safeguards.

4. Forensic Modernization

o Establish dedicated forensic service funding streams ensuring scientific

investigation capacity for all serious crimes, reducing reliance on

confession-based investigation methods.

o Develop mobile forensic units ensuring scientific evidence collection

capability in rural and underserved areas where custodial violence risks

are often highest.

o Implement specialized medical forensic training for healthcare

providers examining detainees, with standardized documentation

protocols aligned with Istanbul Protocol requirements.

o Create forensic evidence incentive systems rewarding investigating

officers for scientific evidence collection rather than confession-based

approaches.

5. Training and Capacity Building

o Develop specialized custody management certification programs

establishing detention management as a professional specialization

requiring specific competencies.

o Implement comprehensive human rights education throughout police

training, with emphasis on experiential learning methods including

136
 perspective-taking, role reversal, and direct engagement with affected

communities.

o Establish ethical leadership development focusing specifically on

custody supervision, norm-setting, intervention responsibilities, and

creation of rights-respecting detention environments.

o Develop psychological support services addressing occupational stress

and trauma exposure that contribute to excessive force risks in custodial

settings.

6. Accountability Enhancement

o Establish dedicated prosecution units for custodial violence cases, with

specialized training, independent operation, and freedom from

dependency on police cooperation in routine cases.

o Implement comprehensive compensation systems with standardized

assessment criteria ensuring appropriate and consistent remedies for

custodial violations.

o Create early intervention systems identifying officers and units with

complaint patterns for targeted supervision, training, and accountability

before serious violations occur.

o Establish custody auditing mechanisms through independent external

review of detention practices, documentation, and compliance with

procedural requirements.

7. Implementation Monitoring

137
 o Develop centralized implementation tracking systems for all custodial

justice reforms, with regular public reporting on compliance rates across

jurisdictions.

o Establish reform implementation units within police departments with

specific responsibility for operationalizing custodial justice initiatives

and reporting implementation status.

o Create consequences for implementation failure through funding

linkages, performance evaluation impacts, and institutional

accountability for reform compliance.

o Implement periodic assessment studies evaluating both implementation

status and effectiveness of reforms in achieving custodial justice

objectives.

These recommendations address both immediate procedural safeguards and deeper

structural reforms necessary for sustainable transformation of India's custodial justice

system. By simultaneously enhancing accountability, transparency, capacity, and

incentive structures, these reforms target the multidimensional factors that enable

custodial violence despite formal prohibitions. Implementation requires political

commitment, resource allocation, institutional leadership, and sustained civil society

engagement to translate recommendations into operational realities that protect

fundamental rights in custodial settings.

Ultimately, reforming custodial justice in India requires recognizing that the persistence

of abuse despite decades of reform efforts reflects fundamental contradictions in

institutional design, incentive structures, and organizational cultures rather than merely

implementation failures of sound systems. Addressing these contradictions demands

138
comprehensive transformation rather than incremental modification, aligning

institutional arrangements, professional incentives, and cultural values with

constitutional principles regarding human dignity and personal liberty. Through such

alignment, custodial justice can move from aspirational standard to lived reality for all

individuals who encounter law enforcement in India.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles

Dhagamwar, V. (2003). "Police, Politics and the Public: Custodial Deaths in India."

Economic and Political Weekly, 38(26): 2763-2769.

Raj, K. (2000). "The Torture Commission Report of 1855: A Re-examination." The

Indian Economic and Social History Review, 37(2): 131-159.

Raghavan, R.K. (2010). "The Indian Police: Problems and Prospects." Policing: An

International Journal, 33(2): 285-301.

Verma, A. (2011). "The New Police Act: A Critique." Economic and Political Weekly,

46(23): 22-25.

Singh, P. (2014). "Trends in Custodial Deaths in India: An Analysis." Criminal Law

Journal, 120(7): 175-192.

Books

Arnold, D. (1986). Police Power and Colonial Rule: Madras 1859-1947. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Bayley, D. H. (1969). The Police and Political Development in India. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

139
Gupta, A. (2012). Red Tape: Bureaucracy, Structural Violence, and Poverty in India.

Durham: Duke University Press.

Jauregui, B. (2016). Provisional Authority: Police, Order, and Security in India.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sen, S. (2000). Disciplining Punishment: Colonialism and Convict Society in the

Andaman Islands. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Verma, A. (2005). The Indian Police: A Critical Evaluation. New Delhi: Regency

Publications.

Reports and Websites

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. (2005). Police Reform Debates in India.

New Delhi: CHRI. Retrieved from

www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/police_reform_debates.pdf

Government of India. (1981). National Police Commission: Eighth Report. New

Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs. Retrieved from

mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/NPC_report.pdf

National Human Rights Commission. (2021). Guidelines on Custodial Justice.

Retrieved from nhrc.nic.in/publications/guidelines-custodial-justice

Sorabjee, S.J. (2007). Model Police Act: Report of the Police Act Drafting Committee.

New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs. Retrieved from

bprd.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/6798203243-model-police-act.pdf

Human Rights Watch. (2016). Bound by Brotherhood: India's Failure to End Killings

in Police Custody. Retrieved from www.hrw.org/report/2016/12/19/bound-

brotherhood/indias-failure-end-killings-police-custody

140