Custodial torture and deaths remain a concern in many legal systems, where the law strives to protect the fundamental rights of every individual, especially during police custody. The recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Indira Vs. State Human Rights Commission (SLP(C) No. 7800-7802/2024) sheds light on the complex issues surrounding custodial torture, the responsibility of law enforcement, and the protection of individual rights under the Indian Constitution.

Case Overview: Custodial Death and Allegations of Torture

The case revolved around the death of a man who was arrested in 2016 on charges related to sexual harassment and was later found dead in a jail. The deceased's wife claimed that his death was the result of custodial torture, citing 17 injuries found on his body. A State Human Rights Commission inquiry supported the claim of police manhandling but did not find sufficient evidence to directly link the death to police brutality. Despite the conflicting findings, the petitioner sought compensation, invoking violations of her husband's right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Madras High Court had earlier ruled that there was no evidence to suggest that the police were responsible for his death.

The Supreme Court, however, acknowledged that while the cause of death could not be definitively attributed to police assault, it could not be denied that the man was "thrashed" in custody.

You can also read the latest judgment by visiting [Latest Judgment].
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]

Rights Against Custodial Torture

1. Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to every individual. This fundamental right includes the protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and arbitrary detention. In cases of custodial deaths, especially where torture is alleged, the State must ensure a fair investigation, accountability for law enforcement officers, and adequate compensation for the victims’ families.

The Indira Vs. State Human Rights Commission case underscores the responsibility of police authorities to adhere to legal procedures, refrain from violence, and ensure the safety of detainees while in custody. Any violation of these norms could lead to a breach of the individual’s right to life.

2. Custodial Torture and the Prohibition of Torture

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (BNS) under Section 120(1) and Section 120(2) criminalizes the infliction of harm by police officers or other public servants to extract confessions or punish individuals. Additionally, custodial torture is prohibited under Section 379 of the BNSS (The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023). Despite these legal protections, cases of custodial abuse persist, often due to inadequate oversight and accountability mechanisms.

India is also a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), which obligates the State to prevent torture and take measures to ensure justice for victims of torture

3. Accountability and Compensation for Victims

In cases of custodial deaths or torture, victims or their families can seek justice by filing complaints before human rights commissions, courts, or other designated bodies. In the case of Indira Vs. State Human Rights Commission, the family was awarded compensation by the State Human Rights Commission for the manhandling, although the Court later dismissed the petition for a direct compensation order due to unclear facts regarding the cause of death.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that in cases where the police are found responsible for custodial abuse, the State must provide compensation to the victim's family, acknowledging the violation of their fundamental rights. The issue of adequate compensation remains central to discussions around custodial rights and accountability.

The Need for Reform: Enhancing Custodial Safeguards

There is an urgent need for reform to ensure the following:

1. Accountability Mechanisms: Strengthening mechanisms for monitoring police behavior and ensuring that law enforcement officers are held accountable for any abuse in custody.
2. Training and Awareness: Ensuring that police officers are adequately trained in human rights and legal procedures to prevent the use of excessive force.
3. Independent Oversight: Empowering independent bodies, such as Human Rights Commissions, to carry out thorough investigations into custodial deaths and torture claims.
4. Strengthening Compensation Laws: Establishing clear, efficient processes for the timely award of compensation to victims of custodial abuse, ensuring justice for affected families.

Conclusion: The Fight Against Custodial Abuse

As India continues to uphold its commitment to human rights, ensuring that individuals are treated with dignity and respect, even when under arrest, must be a priority for all law enforcement agencies and the judiciary. The battle against custodial torture and deaths remains a critical issue, and this case serves as a call for stronger safeguards and a commitment to justice.