Supreme Court on Custodial Torture: Key Judgments and Guidelines

🧭 Introduction

Custodial torture is one of the darkest stains on the Indian justice system. Despite constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards, individuals continue to suffer abuse and even death while in police or judicial custody. The Supreme Court of India has consistently taken a strong stance against this systemic violence, issuing landmark judgments and laying down crucial guidelines to safeguard citizens’ rights. Yet, the gap between legal doctrine and ground reality remains wide.

This blog explores the key Supreme Court judgments and guidelines that have shaped the legal response to custodial torture in India.

⚖️ 1. Constitutional Protection Against Torture

The Indian Constitution, although it does not explicitly mention the word “torture,” provides several safeguards:

  • Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Includes protection from torture and inhuman treatment.

  • Article 20(3) – No person shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves.

  • Article 22(1) – Guarantees rights to be informed of arrest, consult a legal practitioner, and be produced before a magistrate.

The Supreme Court has interpreted these provisions liberally to include protection from custodial abuse.

🧑‍⚖️ 2. Key Judgments by the Supreme Court

🔹 D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

  • Citation: (1997) 1 SCC 416

  • Significance: Landmark case laying down 11 guidelines to prevent custodial torture.

  • Highlights:

    • Police must wear name tags.

    • Arrest memo must be signed by a family member or witness.

    • Medical examination every 48 hours.

    • Information about the arrest must be given to a relative.

  • Impact: Forms the standard operating procedure for police arrests.

🔹 Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)

  • Citation: (1993) 2 SCC 746

  • Facts: A boy died in custody due to police torture.

  • Significance: The Court awarded monetary compensation to the victim’s mother.

  • Doctrine Established: Compensation can be claimed under public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights under Article 21.

🔹 Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994)

  • Citation: (1994) 4 SCC 260

  • Principle: Arrest should not be routine. Police must justify the necessity of arrest.

  • Importance: Recognized the psychological torture that arbitrary detention causes.

🔹 Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012)

  • Citation: (2012) 8 SCC 1

  • Facts: A businessman was tortured while in custody.

  • Outcome: SC held that dignity is non-negotiable, and awarded ₹5 lakh compensation.

  • Principle: Any form of custodial violence violates Article 21 and is actionable.

🔹 Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020)

  • Citation: (2021) 1 SCC 184

  • Issue: Non-compliance with earlier orders on installation of CCTV cameras in police stations.

  • Order: Directed all States and UTs to ensure functioning CCTV surveillance in interrogation and lockup areas.

  • Objective: Prevention through monitoring.

🧱 3. Guidelines and Procedural Safeguards

The Supreme Court has provided detailed guidelines across cases:

✅ From D.K. Basu Case:

  • Arrest memo countersigned by a witness.

  • Right to meet a lawyer during interrogation.

  • Medical checkups every 48 hours.

  • All details must be logged and reported.

✅ From Paramvir Singh Saini Case:

  • CCTV coverage must include audio and video.

  • Data retention for at least 18 months.

  • Complaints redressal mechanisms must be in place.

  • Oversight by District and State-level Human Rights Committees.

📝 4. Legal Tools & Remedies

  • Writ under Article 32/226: Approach the SC or High Court for violation of fundamental rights.

  • Filing FIRs under IPC Sections like:

    • 330/331: Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession.

    • 302: Murder (used in cases of custodial deaths).

  • Compensation petitions under public law jurisprudence.

📉 5. The Gap in Implementation

Despite clear orders from the apex court:

  • Many police stations lack proper CCTV coverage.

  • Arrest and detention norms are frequently flouted.

  • Victims and families often face intimidation or social stigma.

  • Conviction rate in custodial death cases remains abysmally low.

🌐 6. Global Perspective and India’s Position

  • India has signed but not ratified the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT).

  • The Supreme Court has, in multiple cases, emphasized the need for an anti-torture law.

  • A draft Prevention of Torture Bill remains pending since 2010.

🧠 Conclusion: The Law Exists—Enforce It

The Supreme Court has built a strong framework against custodial torture through progressive jurisprudence. However, laws alone are not enough. Implementation, police reform, and public pressure are crucial. Every custodial death is a failure of justice, and the courts have reminded us time and again: no one loses their rights when they lose their freedom.