“Supreme Court on Custodial Torture: Key Judgments and Guidelines”

  • Begin with a strong statement: “Torture has no place in a civilized society.”

  • Define custodial torture and explain its connection to custodial deaths.

  • Emphasize the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of fundamental rights under the Constitution.

  • Thesis: The Indian Supreme Court has repeatedly intervened to uphold human dignity and curb custodial abuse—yet implementation remains a concern.

⚖️ Section 1: Constitutional Provisions Against Torture

  • Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

  • Article 20(3): Protection against self-incrimination.

  • Article 22: Safeguards during arrest and detention.

  • The judiciary’s expansive interpretation of Article 21 includes freedom from torture and cruel treatment.

🧑‍⚖️ Section 2: Landmark Supreme Court Judgments

Highlight major SC rulings that shaped custodial justice in India:

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

  • Most cited judgment on custodial torture.

  • Issued 11 mandatory guidelines for arrests and detentions:

    • Police must wear identification tags.

    • Arrest memo to be signed by a witness.

    • Medical examination every 48 hours.

    • Inform relative or friend of arrest.

  • Significance: Made transparency and documentation mandatory.

  • Still forms the basis of police procedure today.

📍2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)

  • A boy died in police custody.

  • SC ordered compensation to the mother.

  • Recognized that compensation is a constitutional remedy under Article 32.

  • Shifted focus from criminal prosecution to victim compensation.

📍3. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy (2000)

  • Reaffirmed that no person loses their fundamental rights in custody.

  • Even undertrial prisoners are entitled to dignity and safety.

  • States are liable for custodial deaths.

📍4. Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016–2020)

  • Series of petitions leading to detailed directions on prison conditions.

  • Included torture, overcrowding, and mental health.

  • Appointed amicus curiae to monitor conditions.

📍5. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India

  • SC reiterated the need for independent oversight of police functioning.

  • Pushed for implementation of Police Complaints Authorities (from Prakash Singh case).

📝 Section 3: Guidelines for Police & Investigating Agencies

  • Arrest must not be routine—must have justification.

  • CCTV installation in police stations (2018 SC directive).

  • Section 41 & 41A of CrPC: Used to prevent arbitrary arrests.

  • Mandatory video recording of confessions, where applicable.

📉 Section 4: Gaps in Implementation

  • Despite SC orders, custodial deaths continue (e.g., over 150 per year reported by NCRB).

  • States slow to implement CCTV coverage and monitoring bodies.

  • Police still enjoy de facto impunity due to weak accountability systems.

  • Lack of awareness among citizens and even some lower-rung law enforcement.

🌐 Section 5: International Obligations & Supreme Court Stance

  • India has not ratified the UN Convention Against Torture.

  • SC in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) emphasized the importance of monitoring and recording custodial environments, referring to global human rights norms.

  • Court called for functional CCTV systems in all police stations.

📌 Section 6: What More Needs to Be Done

  • Establish independent bodies for custodial oversight.

  • Implement SC directions in letter and spirit.

  • Enact a standalone anti-torture law.

  • Ensure swift prosecution of erring officers.

🧠 Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court has been proactive in defining safeguards against custodial torture.

  • But courts can only provide legal architecture—the real change depends on political will, police reform, and public pressure.

  • As citizens, we must remain vigilant to protect the constitutional promise of dignity for all—even those behind bars.